1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.4637 OF 2005 WRIT PETITION NO.4637 OF 2005 WRIT PETITION NO.4637 OF 2005 Mr. Hanchnale Kishore Vannappa ...Petitioner Mr. Hanchnale Kishore Vannappa ...Petitioner Mr. Hanchnale Kishore Vannappa ...Petitioner Vs. Vs. Vs. Zilla Parishad, Satara & Ors. ...Respondents Zilla Parishad, Satara & Ors. ...Respondents Zilla Parishad, Satara & Ors. ...Respondents ----- ----- ----- Mr. Uday Warunjikar Adv. for Petitioner Mr. Uday Warunjikar Adv. for Petitioner Mr. Uday Warunjikar Adv. for Petitioner Mr. S.R. Sharma Adv. i/b.Mr. M.B.Mehere for Mr. S.R. Sharma Adv. i/b.Mr. M.B.Mehere for Mr. S.R. Sharma Adv. i/b.Mr. M.B.Mehere for Respondent No.1 Respondent No.1 Respondent No.1 Mr. Sonawane, A.G.P. for the State Mr. Sonawane, A.G.P. for the State Mr. Sonawane, A.G.P. for the State CORAM: F.I.REBELLO & ROSHAN DALVI, JJ. CORAM: F.I.REBELLO & ROSHAN DALVI, JJ. CORAM: F.I.REBELLO & ROSHAN DALVI, JJ. DATED: 18TH NOVEMBER, 2005 DATED: 18TH NOVEMBER, 2005 DATED: 18TH NOVEMBER, 2005 P.C. P.C. P.C. 1. Rule. Heard forthwith. 1. Rule. Heard forthwith. 1. Rule. Heard forthwith. 2. The grievance of the Petitioner is that though 2. The grievance of the Petitioner is that though 2. The grievance of the Petitioner is that though his caste claim was before Respondent No.2 yet his caste claim was before Respondent No.2 yet his caste claim was before Respondent No.2 yet Respondent No.1 has demoted the Petitioner to the post Respondent No.1 has demoted the Petitioner to the post Respondent No.1 has demoted the Petitioner to the post of Senior Assistant. On behalf of Respondent No.2 of Senior Assistant. On behalf of Respondent No.2 of Senior Assistant. On behalf of Respondent No.2 learned Counsel states that Home Study Enquiry is learned Counsel states that Home Study Enquiry is learned Counsel states that Home Study Enquiry is complete and in fact report has been submitted to the complete and in fact report has been submitted to the complete and in fact report has been submitted to the Petitioner. Considering that Respondent No.2 is Petitioner. Considering that Respondent No.2 is Petitioner. Considering that Respondent No.2 is directed to complete the hearing and pass the order directed to complete the hearing and pass the order directed to complete the hearing and pass the order within 8 weeks from today. The Petitioner has been within 8 weeks from today. The Petitioner has been within 8 weeks from today. The Petitioner has been demoted only because he could not produce caste demoted only because he could not produce caste demoted only because he could not produce caste certificate, if the Respondent holds in favour of the certificate, if the Respondent holds in favour of the certificate, if the Respondent holds in favour of the Petitioner, Respondent No.1 is directed to promote the Petitioner, Respondent No.1 is directed to promote the Petitioner, Respondent No.1 is directed to promote the Petitioner on producing the caste certificate within 2 Petitioner on producing the caste certificate within 2 Petitioner on producing the caste certificate within 2 weeks of such production of the caste certificate. weeks of such production of the caste certificate. weeks of such production of the caste certificate. 2 3. Rule made absolute accordingly. No order as 3. Rule made absolute accordingly. No order as 3. Rule made absolute accordingly. No order as to costs. to costs. to costs. (F.I.REBELLO J.) (F.I.REBELLO J.) (F.I.REBELLO J.) (ROSHAN DALVI, J.) (ROSHAN DALVI, J.) (ROSHAN DALVI, J.)