wp623.09.odt 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO 623 OF 2009 Purushottam a/o Sampatrao Bansod, Aged about 49 years, Occupation-Service- Asst. Engi. MSETCL, posted at Sub-Station Warthi, District-Bhandara, R/o Malewar Nagar, Pragati Colony, Behind Satyam Talkies, Bhandara. .. PETITIONER .. Versus .. 1. State of Maharashtra, through its Secretary, Social Justice Department Mantralaya, Mumbai. 2. Divisional Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee No.1 (For SC, OBC, VJ & NT), Nagpur Division, Nagpur through its Chairman, having its office at Somalwar Bhavan, Fl. No.3, Mount Road Ext. Sadar, Nagpur. 3. The Maharashtra State Electricity Transmission Company Limited, through its Executive Director (Transmission), having its office at Prakashganga, Bandra (East), Mumbai. .. RESPONDENTS -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Shri S.M. Ghodeswar, Advocate for the petitioner, Smt. S.S. Wandile, A.G.P. for respondent Nos. 1 & 2 none for respondent No.3. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- wp623.09.odt 2 CORAM:- J.P. DEVADHAR AND A.B. CHAUDHARI, JJ. DATED :- 06 th OCTOBER, 2010 ORAL JUDGMENT (Per A.B Chaudhari, J) 1. Heard. Rule. Rule returnable forthwith by consent of learned Counsel for the rival parties. 2. The only point raised in the present writ petition is whether the petitioner having migrated in the year 1979 from the State of Madhya Pradesh to the State of Maharashtra is entitled to benefits available to the Scheduled Caste in the State of Maharashtra. 3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued that even if the father of the petitioner was not born in Maharashtra, but was from the District of Balaghat (Madhya Pradesh), he would still be entitled to the benefits available to the Scheduled Caste in the State of Maharashtra as the caste 'Mahar' is also Scheduled Caste in Maharashtra. 4. After having heard learned Counsel for the rival parties, we find that the issue involved in this petition is no more res integra and has been categorically decided by the Full Bench of this Court in the case of Shweta Santalal Lal Vs. State of Maharashtra and others reported in 2010 (2) Mh.L.J. 904, relying on the wp623.09.odt 3 decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. This Court made the following observations on the issue in question in paragraphs 14 and 26, which read thus ; ““14. Before proceeding further, we may also refer to the Judgment in Subhash Chandra and another vs. Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board and others, 2009 (11) SCALE 278. That was a case where migrants in the Union Territory of Delhi, who were born in the geographical area of the Union Territory, but whose parents had migrated after the Presidential Notification, claimed benefit of reservation to posts in the Union Territory of Delhi. The argument was accepted by a learned Single Judge of the Delhi High Court and upheld by the Division Bench. The matter went in appeal to the Supreme Court. After considering the various judgments, including two Constitution Bench Judgments referred to earlier, the Supreme Court was pleased to observe that they are bound by the Constitution Bench Decision in Marri Chandrashekhar Rao and accordingly set aside the orders passed by the Delhi High Court. In other words, children of migrants are not entitled to the benefit of reservation even if they have the same nomenclature as the Scheduled Caste notified for the Capital Territory of Delhi. 26. Having said so, we may now answer the Reference. In case of a migrant belonging to a Scheduled Caste, not ordinarily resident as on 10-3-1950 in the area that now constitutes the State of Maharashtra and in a case of S.T., considering Rule 5, on 6-9-1950, would not be entitled to benefits of reservation as S.C./S.T. in the State of Maharashtra. They and their progeny will continue to get the benefits of reservation in the State of origin. Reference answered accordingly.” 5. In view of the above discussion, we find no merit in the wp623.09.odt 4 present writ petition since the issue is fully covered by the said decision. Hence, the writ petition is dismissed. JUDGE JUDGE pma