IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY

BENCH AT AURANGABAD

WRIT PETITION NO. 6632 OF 2013

DISTRICT: LATUR

G.Laxman s/o Mallaiah …PETITIONER

VERSUS

The State of Maharashtra & others …RESPONDENTS

Written Arguments Filed On Behalf Of The Petetioner

PART - (I)

May it please your lordship,

Petitioner’s Counsel Wish to submit the following written arguments before this
Honourable High Court for perusal of your lordships for proper appraisal for disposing the
case accordingly.

This matte is pertaining to the issue raised by the respondent No 3 wherein the
respondent No 3 instead of deciding senior scale to the petitioner to the correspondence by the
college of the petitioner to the respondent no 3 dated 25/11/2009 for deciding senior scale to the
1Page

petitioner but had raised an issue of cast validity certificate while issuing the letter of
correspondence by letter dated 16/1/2013 issued by respondent no 3 to the college where the
petitioner is the lecturer and in the said correspondence it has been directed by respondent no
3 to the petitioner that a caste verification certificate be brought from the state of Maharashtra
.But the crux of the matter is that the petitioner was appointed way back in 3/12/2003 and
probation was completed in the year 2005 and from the date of appointment and up to
probation period caste validity certificate of the petitioner which was issued by the MRO
maredpally and scrutinised by collector Hyderabad district the then Andhra Pradesh state and
after scrutiny only probation period was completed and the petitioner has been working as a
lecturer in dayanand college latur as law lecturer and at the time of grant of senior scale only
the respondent no 3 has raised an issue of cast validity to be produced by the petitioner from
the state of Maharashtra .The issuance of letter by respondent no 3 dated 16 January 2013 is
bad in law and it is the cause of action for this petitioner to approach this temple of justice
seeking justice by filing the above writ petition praying this Hon’ble court by issuing order or
direction , that the impugned order dated 16/1/2013 issued by respondent no 2 may be kindly
be quashed and set aside and also seeking other prayers as mentioned by the petitioner in the
supra writ petition .

The Brief Facts of the Case are as Follows …

1) Petitioner is a member of Migrant Scheduled Caste (SC) from Hyderabad District, Andhra
Pradesh/Telangana, who’s Sub-caste “Mala”, and the same caste also available in the List of
Maharashtra State. The said mala committee is a scheduled caste (same cast) in the
presidential order issued for the state of maharastra (SR No 39). Originally the petitioners
father and his ancestors hail from Hyderabad district in Andhra Pradesh. The office of
Tahasildar, competent authority Hyderabad Andhra pradersh has issued cast certificate to the
petitioner on 18/9/1984 the said caste certificate of the petitioner was scrutinised by the
university authorities at the time of selection of the petitioner to the post of lecturer to the
2

Dayanand college of latur .

Page

2) The petitioner respectfully submits that , the petitioner has appointed as lecturer in
dayanand college of law latur on temporary basis against the post reserved for scheduled tribe
category , by the appointment order dated 3/2/2000 by duly constituted committee of the
university due to non availability of scheduled tribe candidate and the same was continued that
 is appointment of the petitioner on temporary basis yearly up to 30/12/2013 and on 30/12/2013
this petitioner was appointed as a lecturer on sc category and the scheduled tribe has been
changed to sc category on the 6th notice called for appointment and after the appointment 2
years probation is to be completed by the petitioner and after the completion of probation
period which was confirmed on 30/12/2005 vide its letter dated 23/1/2006.Accordingly the
concern college forwarded the proposal for approval of the petitioner to the said post wide its
proposal dated 25/1/2008in response to the same, he respondent no 3 by relying upon their
circular dated 18/2/2008, directed concerned principal of Dayanand Law College, Latur to
take further action. As per the circular dated 18/2/2008 it was instructed to the principles of all
affiliated colleges of the university, not to send proposals of confirmation of teachers to the
university and the matter is to be settled by the concern college only and to forward copy of
confirmation letter to the university.

3) The petitioner respectfully submits that after the petitioner became eligible for senior scale,
on the recommendation of duly constituted committee of the college. The report was submitted
to the university seeking approval for the grant of senior scale to the petitioner the said
correspondence dated 25/11/2009 has been send to the said university and the same is also
being filed in the court. The petitioner further submit that in the response to the said
correspondence in respect of the petitioner seeking approval for grant of senior scale to the
petitioner, the respondent no 3 vide its letter dated 26/4/2010 informed that, the petitioner has
submitted caste validity certificate from Andhra Pradesh/Telangana even though, the
petitioner has to submit additional caste validity certificate from the government of
3

Maharashtra then only further action would be taken for grant of senior scale to the
Page

petitioner.

4) The petitioner college that is management of Dayanand Law College, Latur made special
recommendation to the respondent no 3 seeking approval to the senior scale of the petitioner
along with consequential benefits. The petitioner also by his application dated 18/5/2012
approached the respondent no 3 for considering his case for approval to the senior scale by
citing UGC norms (UGC guidelines for strict implementation of reservation of the central
government in the universities, colleges and other grant-in-aid institutes and centres etc) copies
of the application mode by the petitioner dated 18/5/2012 along with the letter issued by the
principal Dayanand Law College has been submitted to this Hon’ble court

5) The petitioner submits that the respondent no 2 in response to the aforesaid correspondence
by its letter dated 16/1/2013 once again directed the petitioner to produce caste validity
certificate issued by government of Maharashtra and to the same this petitioner approached
the divisional caste scrutiny committee, latur for grant of caste validity certificate while its
application dated 12/2/2013. The caste validity committee latur vide its order dated 12/3/2013
refused to consider this petitioners application, on the ground that the case of the petitioner is
beyond jurisdiction of the caste scrutiny committee, latur .

Thus being aggrieved and dissatisfied by the failure on the part of respondent no 2 to 4 to
grant approval to the petitioner for senior scale the petitioner has filed the writ petition under
article 226 of the Constitution Of India praying this Hon’ble court to pass an order or
direction that the impugned order dated 16/1/2013 issued by respondent no 2 may kindly be
quashed and further sort direction from this Hon’ble court for promotion and seek arrears
due and also seek further promotions and pass any such order or orders which this Hon’ble
court may deem, fit and proper in the interest of justice and circumstances of the case.1]The
following are the points for consideration to be perused by this hon’ble court to decide the
above writ petition filed by the petitioner
4 Page

A) It is to be perused by this Hon’ble court that whether this petitioner has approached this
Hon’ble court with valid reason and whether the petition filed by the petitioner is maintainable
or not.

B)It is to be perused by this Hon’ble court that whether the respondents no 2’s direction to the
petitioner vide its letter dated 16/1/2013 by once again directing the petitioner to produce caste
validity certificate by government of Maharashtra that is to at the stage of senior scale due to
petitioner is proper or not.

C) It is to be perused by this Hon’ble court that whether the petitioner is entitled for senior
scale as per the correspondence dated 25/11/2009 which was the report of the assessment
committee for selection to the senior.

D)It is to be perused by this Hon’ble court that whether the respondent no 2’s seeking caste
validity certificate from the petitioner at the time of giving promotion as senior scale to the
petitioner is within limitation or bared by limitation.

E) It is to be perused by this Hon’ble court that whether the petitioner has approached this
Hon’ble court with clean hands and whether the petitioner’s claim can be considered or not.

A) It is to be perused by this Hon’ble court that whether this petitioner has approached this
Hon’ble court with valid reason and whether the petition filed by the petitioner is maintainable
or not.
5

Petitioner has been appointed as a full-time lecturer in law against Scheduled Tribes (ST)
Page

category on 3rd February 2000, in Dayanand College of Law, Latur by duly Constituted Committee
of Swami Ramanand Teerth Marathwada, University, Nanded, Maharashtra.

In the 6th Call there was interchangeable into Scheduled Caste i.e., ST/SC and petitioner was
given reservation benefit as SC. However, petitioner belongs to the member of Migrant Scheduled
Caste form Hyderabad, Andhra Pradesh/Telangana State.
 There were no Scheduled Tribe (ST) and Scheduled Caste (SC) candidates from the State of
Maharashtra. They had not turned-up for the said post from the State of Maharashtra even though
sufficient opportunity was given to them. There was no violation of rights of members of the
Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes of Maharashtra State.

For this reason, the said post has come-out from the conditions and limitations of reservation.
It was a seized-out from the reservations of ST/SC. There were no more reservations applicable to
this post. De-reservation was the next procedure and it was applicable to this post.

Petitioner had submitted his Caste Validity from the origin-state i.e. The Chairman, District
Collector, Caste Scrutiny Committee, Hyderabad, Andhra Pradesh/Telangana State and the same
was Accepted also Probation Approval given by the University for the successful probation period
of the petitioner.

Petitioner’s services were confirmed by the College through Local Management Committee
(LMC) meeting of the Society, on the basis of the Probation Approval of the University.

Further, University replied with a direction that copy of the proceedings need not to forward
to the University. Therefore, services of petitioner have considered as permanent, further there is no
need of any permanent approval from the University; it is as per the University Statute. (Dt. 26/27 th
January 2008)

Later, petitioner has completed requisite period and reached for first stage of promotion also
complied the mandatory procedure. For that reason, University Constituted a Committee also
6

recommended the first promotion in favour of the petitioner and same was submitted to University
Page

for the approval of first promotion.

But University did not give the approval for first promotion. In addition, an objection was
raised by University, that though the petitioner had submitted caste validity from the Hyderabad,
Andhra Pradesh. Still, petitioner required to be submitted caste validity from Caste Scrutiny
Committee, Maharashtra.
 It was adverse situation caused by the University. It has denied the legitimate expectation of
the petitioner. It amounts to arbitrary, discriminatory, unfair, biased, gross abuse of power or
violation of the principles of natural justice.

IN view of the above facts and circumstances the respondent no 2’s direction to the petitioner
to submit caste validity certificate from the state of maharasta is illegal, arbitrary , against law and as
such the petitioners approaching this honable court against the respondent no 2’s direction by way of
this writ petition is valid and the petition is maintainable

B)It is to be perused by this Hon’ble court that whether the respondents no 2’s direction to the
petitioner vide its letter dated 16/1/2013 by once again directing the petitioner to produce caste
validity certificate by government of Maharashtra that is to at the stage of senior scale due to
petitioner is proper or not.

The petitioner submits that the petitioner was appointed as a full time lecturer in the year 2003
in the Dayanand law college and up to 2005 year ending probation period was completed and
later on he had become full time lecturer at the time of appointment the petitioner has
submitted his caste validity certificate and after going through all the documents only by the
concerned authorities had confirmed the post of lecturer and also after completion of
probation period they have conformed permanent post to the petitioner. There after in the
year 2009 the management has sent a proposal to the second respondent that the petitioner
may be given senior scale. But the 2nd respondent instead of giving conformation of senior scale
to the petitioner the second respondent had directed the petitioner through the college to
7

submit cast validity certificate from the state of Maharashtra. To the same the petitioner had
Page

approached the caste scrutiny committee wherein the said caste scrutiny committee has
rejected the application of the petitioner. The petitioner through the college has informed the
same to the 2nd respondent. The 2nd respondent again sent a letter dated 16/1/2013 repeating the
same i.e. by directing the petitioner through the college to bring caste validity certificate from
the state of Maharashtra. Being aggrieved by the same the petitioner has approached this
Hon’ble court by filing this supra case
It is pertinent to be noted by this Hon’ble court that he direction given by the respondent no 2
to the petitioner vide its letter dated 16/1/2003 is valid or not in the eyes of law. It is further
submitted that as stated supra this petitioner was appointed as lecturer in the Dayanand
college of law in the last month of 2003 and probation was completed in the last month of 2005
and in the 1st month of 2006 a conformation letter was sent by the management of the college to
the 2nd respondent , wherein after receiving the said letter the 2nd respondent has issued a
circular that the management has power to confirm the probation and grant permanent
lecturer to the petitioner, as such in view of the said circular the petitioner has been granted
permanent lecturer in the supra college. It is also submitted that the said conformation has
been done after caste verification validity certificate has been given by collector Hyderabad
district. The said action of the management of the college is known to the 2nd respondent and
the 2nd respondent at no point of time had objected to the appointment of the petitioner from
2003 up to 2010 i.e. the year ( in 2010) in which a letter was sent by the respondent no 2 to the
petitioner college giving direction to the petitioner to submit caste validity certificate from the
state of Maharashtra and that is to at the time of senior scale promotion to the petitioner
which is due from the year 2009. Later on the management and the petitioner had sent a
return letter that it is not possible to submit caste validity certificate from the state of
Maharashtra. To the same the respondent no 2 has again given a letter to the management of
the college vide letter dated 16/1/2003 by again directing the petitioner to submit caste validity
certificate from the state of Maharashtra. It is to be noted by this Hon’ble court that the
respondent no 2 has already has knowledge that the petitioner was appointed way back in 2003
and also has knowledge that after due verification of the petitioner caste validity certificate
8 Page

from the state of Andhra Pradesh the petitioner was appointed as a lecturer to the supra
college and also had knowledge that the petitioner has completed the probation period and at
the time of senior scale due to the petitioner the respondent no 2 instead of verifying the
antecedents of the petitioner i.e. whether the petitioner has any remarks in his service register
or whether any memos with regarding to his behaviour or whether the petitioner is holding the
classes properly or whether he is a regular absentee or not are to be verified while giving the
senior scale promotion to the petitioner, and to the same there are numerous circulars or
orders are there in the university that is how to and under what criteria the senior scale
promotion is to be given there are well laid rules and regulations in the university. But instead
of going through the same the respondent no 2 had at this stage i.e. the promotion to the
senior scale had illegally and unwarrantedly has given a direction vide letter dated 16/1/2013
by directing the petitioner to submit caste validity certificate from the state wherein the
petitioner has not born or brought up or studied. It is to be noted by this Hon’ble court that
the letter dated 16/1/2013 is uncalled for and it has been sent with an ulterior motive only to
harass the petitioner for no fault of him. It is to be noted by this Hon’ble court that the Sri
Ramanand Terth University runs as per the UGC norms and as per the UGC norms and
regulations the petitioner belongs to Scheduled Caste Sub-Caste is Mala and in the state of
Maharashtra also it comes under SC category further as per UGC norms only selection has to
be done as UGC gives grants to the said university. Further the 2nd respondent’s issuance of
letter dated 16/1/2013 for giving direction to the petitioner to produce caste validity certificate
from the state of Maharashtra the is to at the time of senior scale promotion is against the rules
and regulations framed by the university itself as such the letter dated 16/1/2013 is bad in law
and it is to be quashed in the interest of justice.

C) It is to be perused by this Hon’ble court that whether the petitioner is entitled for senior
scale as per the correspondence dated 25/11/2009 which was the report of the assessment
committee for selection to the senior.
9 Page

1) Petitioner has been appointed as full-time lecturer in law in the month of December 2003
in Dayanand College of Law, Latur by duly Constituted Committee of Swami Ramanand Teerth
Marathwada, University, Nanded, Maharashtra.
 2) In the 6th Call there was interchangeable into Scheduled Caste i.e., ST/SC and petitioner
was given reservation benefit as SC. However, petitioner belongs to the member of Migrant
Scheduled Caste form Hyderabad, Andhra Pradesh/Telangana State.

3) There were no Scheduled Tribe (ST) and Scheduled Caste (SC) candidates from the State
of Maharashtra. They had not turned-up for the said post from the State of Maharashtra even though
sufficient opportunity was given to them. There was no violation of rights of members of the
Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes of Maharashtra State.

4) For this reason, the said post has come-out from the conditions and limitations of
reservation. It was a seized-out from the reservations of ST/SC. There were no more reservations
applicable to this post. De-reservation was the next procedure and it was applicable to this post.

5) Petitioner had submitted his Caste Validity from the origin-state i.e. The Chairman, District
Collector, Caste Scrutiny Committee, Hyderabad, Andhra Pradesh/Telangana State and the same
was Accepted also Probation Approval given by the University for the successful probation period
of the petitioner.

6) Petitioner’s services were confirmed by the College through Local Management Committee
(LMC) meeting of the Society, on the basis of the Probation Approval of the University.

3)The petitioner respectfully submits that after the petitioner became eligible for senior scale,
on the recommendation of duly constituted committee. The report was submitted to the
university seeking approval for the grant of senior scale to the petitioner the said
10

correspondence dated 25/11/2009 has been send to the said university and the same is also
Page

being filed in the court. The petitioner further submit that in the response to the said
correspondence in respect of the petitioner seeking approval for grant of senior scale to the
petitioner, the respondent no 3 vide its letter dated 26/4/2010 informed that, the petitioner has
submitted cast validity certificate from Andhra Pradesh/Telangana even though, the petitioner
has to submit additional cast validity certificate from the government of Maharashtra then
only further action would be taken for grant of senior scale to the petitioner.
4) The petitioner college that is management of Dayanand Law College, Latur made special
recommendation to the respondent no 3 seeking approval to the senior scale of the petitioner
along with consequential benefits. The petitioner also by his application dated 18/5/2012
approached the respondent no 3 for considering his case for approval to the senior scale by
citing UGC norms (UGC guidelines for strict implementation of reservation of the central
government in the universities, colleges and other grant-in-aid institutes and centres etc) copies
of the application mode by the petitioner dated 18/5/2012 along with the letter issued by the
principal Dayanand Law College has been submitted to this Hon’ble court

5) The petitioner submits that the respondent no 2 in response to the aforesaid correspondence
by its letter dated 16/1/2013 once again directed the petitioner to produce caste validity
certificate issued by government of Maharashtra and to the same this petitioner approached
the divisional cast scrutiny committee, latur for grant of caste validity certificate while its
application dated 12/2/2013. The caste validity committee latur vide its order dated 12/3/2013
refused to consider this petitioners application, on the ground that the case of the petitioner is
beyond jurisdiction of the caste scrutiny committee, latur .

Petitioner already fulfilled subsequent condition, that is to say,the Caste Validity was
submitted from the Competent Authority, The Collector, Caste Scrutiny Committee, Hyderabad,
Andhra Pradesh/ Telangana.

“Caste Scrutiny Committee is established in Hyderabad, Telangana State under the

guidelines as provided in the case of Kumari Madhuri Patil (Vs) Addl. Commissioner
(1994), Equivalent Citations: 1995 AIR 94, 1994 SCC (6) 24, in the streamline procedure
11

for issuance of social status certificate and constitute scrutiny committee in accordance
with Supreme Court direction”
Page

As a result of the Supreme Court Direction, it was mandatory to all 29 Indian States. It was
implemented by the Origin State of the petitioner. In the eye of law it is tenable also enforceable all
over India and for that reason another Caste Validity, from the Caste Scrutiny Committee,
Maharashtra is notrequired and necessity does not arises. It amounts to the same-streamline, same-
subject, same-object, and citizens of the same-country. Moreover it comes under Article 13 of the
Indian Constitution.
 University was asking the petitioner to bring Caste Validity Certificate from the Caste
Scrutiny Committee, Maharashtra is no reason at all.

In addition to that it is an impossible act imposed upon the petitioner, because the Caste
Scrutiny Committee, Maharashtra is lack of Jurisdiction to entertain the matter. It is still not possible
to obtain it.

The Doctrine of Frustration

One of the essential elements of a contract is 'Possibility of Performance'. If the performance
of a contract is impossible, it is void. In other words, impossibility of performance renders the
contract void.

The doctrine of frustration is reflective provision under section 56 of the India Contract Act,
1872, it says that any act which was to be performed after the contract is made, it becomes
impossible to perform, and which the promissory could not prevent, then such an act which becomes
impossible or unlawful shall become void.

Hence, asking petitioner to perform an impossible act itself is void in the law, because it is
restricted under the respective law. It is not enforceable by law.

In view of the said facts and circumstances it is to be seen that as per the correspondence dated
25/11/2009 the petitioner is entitled for senior scale as reported by the assessment committee to
the university. The university authorities had only raised the an issue of caste validity
certificate instead of seeing whether the petitioner he is entitled to senior scale as per the
recommendations of the college. But instead looking and taking on other considerations as per
12

the rules and regulations of the university they have deviated from it and directed the
Page

petitioner to do an impossible act that is as stated supra to bring caste validity certificate from
the state of Maharashtra. The university authorities are estopped from again asking for caste
validity certificate for 2nd time which is unlawful and un called for as at 1st instance only the
petitioner has submitted the caste validity certificate and through the same only this petitioner
has been selected and probation has been completed. The university authorities have no right
at this juncture that is at the senior scale promotion stage to again ask for caste validity
certificate and that is to from the state of Maharashtra having known very well for them self
that the petitioner is a native of Hyderabad that is state of Andhra Pradesh/Telangana as such
the university authorities are estopped from giving a direction to the petitioner to do an
impossible act. As such the petitioner is entitled for senior scale since 2009 as it has been
selected by the assessment committee for selection to the senior vide correspondence dated
25/11/2009 thus the petitioner is entitled to the senior scale promotion which is legitimate in the
eyes of law. The 2nd respondent is estopped from asking any other questions or giving
directions except as per the guidelines of U.G.C and norms of university regulations to be
followed while granting senior scale to the petitioner.

D)It is to be perused by this Hon’ble court that whether the respondent no 2’s seeking caste
validity certificate from the petitioner at the time of giving promotion as senior scale to the
petitioner is within limitation or bared by limitation.

Anyreasonable objection(s) are permitted subject to the period of limitation. The reasonable
period is measured up to the period of probation of the petitioner.

But, University raised such form of objection beyond period of limitation as well as beyond the
capacity of authorities of the University. It is very bad precedent it is bad-tempered, not acceptable
and it is not tenable in the law.

Doctrine of Estoppel
13

Once services approved by the University, it is undisputed. Further, University itself cannot
Page

raise any form of objection(s) or imposed any condition(s). Here University acts are considered as
Estoppel under section 115 of the Indian Evidence Act, it means “a person saying something need
not be heard” once it was accepted it is valid in the eye of law. In this Matter, University acts are
colourable administration etc. attracts the law of Estoppel. Therefore, no further act is expected by
the University once it accepted earlier, it becomes an obligation and maintain it as it is; if it is
infringed then it transforms intoa breach of the duty. It amounts beyond reasonable also beyond the
law. It is not tenable in the law.

 Actsauthorities of the University areEstopped under the law

 The law made by State legislature is not applicable to petitioners’ case, in respect
Maharashtra Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes De-Notified Tribes, (Vimukta Jatis)
Nomadic Tribes, Other Backward Classes and Special Backward Category (Regulation of
Issuance and Verification) of Caste Certificate Act, came into force by 23rd May 2001.
Therefore, it is not applicable to the petitioner’s case.

 Caste Validity submitted by petitioner from the Collector, Caste Scrutiny, Hyderabad District,
Andhra Pradesh is absolutely valid in the eye of law.

 Moreover, G.O.Ms.No.58, Social Welfare (J), 12th May, 1997) Caste Scrutiny Committee is
established in Hyderabad, Telangana State under the guidelines as provided in the case of
Kumari Madhuri Patil (Vs) Addl. Commissioner (1994), Equivalent Citations: 1995 AIR 94,
1994 SCC (6) 24, in the streamline procedure for issuance of Social Status Certificate and
Constituted Scrutiny Committee in accordance with Supreme Court direction. Hence, it is
applicable all over India.

Hence, Caste Validity Report issued by the Chairman, Collector, Caste Scrutiny Committee,
Hyderabad, Andhra Pradesh/Telangana. It is applicable to all over India within the meaning of
Article 13 of the Indian Constitution and it cannot be denied.
14

Further the 2nd respondent would have raise the objection or would have given any dirction to
Page

the petitioner at the time of appointment of the petitioner to the lecturer post in Dayanand college in
the year 2003 itself, or atleast the 2nd respondent would have verified the petitioner anticedents at the
time of conformation of probation to the petitioner.Having kept quiet all these years that is form
2003 to 2013 now the 2nd respondent is giving direction to verify or bring the caste cerrtificare from
the state of maharatra is totally barred by limitation.As such the 2nd respondents direction itself is
quesonable and not maintainable in the eyes of law for want of limitation. On this sole ground itelf
the petitioner filed by the petitioner may be allowed in toto, in th intrest of justice.

P.T.0
15Page