Important point
Where appointment to a post was obtained on basis of a caste certificate which was invalid, mere delayed reference would not affect legality of reference.

Headnote:Service Law—Order of termination of services of respondent bank employee—Caste Certificate of Scheduled Tribe submitted by respondent on his promotion in reserved category was invalidated by Scrutiny Committee—Enquiry Officer found the charges proved—Writ petition challenging order of termination on ground that proceedings for verification of caste certificate were not initiated within reasonable period—High Court held that proceedings were not initiated validly and further held that respondent-employee did not belong to Scheduled Tribe and thus was not entitled to promotion and directed reinstatement with back wages—Appeal—Appointment obtained on basis of caste-certificate which was a false certificate was no appointment in law—Mere delay in making a reference did not invalidate the order of Scrutiny Committee—Impugned order could not be sustained.
       Held : Respondent No.1-employee obtained appointment in the service on the basis that he belonged to Scheduled Tribe. When the clear finding of the Scrutiny Committee is that he did not belong to Scheduled Tribe, the very foundation of his appointment collapses and his appointment is no appointment in the eyes of law. There is absolutely no justification for his claim in respect of post he usurped, as the same was meant for reserved candidate. (Para 6)
       We find the conclusions of the High Court to be contradictory. On one hand the High Court faulted the reference which was made after about ten years and on the other hand accepted the findings of the Scrutiny Committee that the respondent No. 1 did not belong to Scheduled Tribe as was held by the Scrutiny Committee. Mere delay in making a reference does not invalidate the order of the Scrutiny Committee. If the High Court felt that the reference was impermissible because of long passage of time, then that would have made the reference vulnerable. By accepting the findings of the Scrutiny Committee that the respondent No. 1- employee did not belong to Scheduled Tribe, the observations about the delayed reference loose significance. The matter can be looked into from another angle. When fraud is perpetrated the parameters of consideration will be different. Fraud and collusion vitiate even the most solemn proceedings in any civilized system of jurisprudence. This Court in Bhaurao Dagdu Paralkar v. State of Maharashtra and Ors. (JT 2005(7) SC 530) dealt with effect of fraud. It was held as follows in the said judgment:
       “14..........Fraud is proved when it is shown that a false representation has been made (i) knowingly, or (ii) without belief in its truth, or (iii) recklessly, careless whether it be true or false’.
       15. This aspect of the matter has been considered by this Court in Roshan Deen v. Preeti Lal (2002(1) SCC 100) Ram Preeti Yadav v. U.P. Board of High School and Intermediate Education (2003(8) SCC 311), Ram Chandra Singh’s case (supra) and Ashok Leyland Ltd. v. State of T.N. and Another (2004(3) SCC 1).
       16. Suppression of a material document would also amount to a fraud on the court, (see Gowrishankar v. Joshi Amba Shankar Family Trust (1996(3) SCC 310) and S.P. Chengalvaraya Naidu’s case (supra).
       17. “Fraud” is a conduct either by letter or words, which induces the other person or authority to take a definite determinative stand as a response to the conduct of the former either by words or letter. Although negligence is not fraud but it can be evidence on fraud; as observed in Ram Preeti Yadav’s case (supra).
       18. In Lazarus Estate Ltd. v. Beasley (1956) 1 QB 702, Lord Denning observed at pages 712 & 713, “No judgment of a Court, no order of a Minister can be allowed to stand if it has been obtained by fraud. Fraud unravels everything.” In the same judgment Lord Parker LJ observed that fraud vitiates all transactions known to the law of however high a degree of solemnity. (page 722)
       19. These aspects were recently highlighted in the State of Andhra Pradesh and Anr. v. T. Suryachandr Rao (2005(5) SCALE 621)”
       Therefore, mere delayed reference when the foundation for the same is alleged fraud does not in any way affect legality of the reference. (Paras 11 and 12)

Judgment

Arijit Pasayat, J.—Appellants call in question legality of the judgment rendered by a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court holding that the respondent No. 1 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘employee’) was to be reinstated in the post in which he was appointed with continuity of service with back wages. It was further held that he was not entitled to promotion as he did not belong to Scheduled Tribe.

2. The background facts sans unnecessary details are as follows:

The respondent joined the services of the appellant No.1-Bank on 15.10.1976 under the reserved category of Scheduled Tribe. He was on probation for a period of six months and thereafter his services came to be confirmed. In 1984 he was promoted in the reserved category to the post of Junior Management Scale I. He was asked to submit fresh caste certificate in the revised form as he was promoted in the reserved category. His caste certificate was referred to the Committee For Scrutiny And Verification of Tribe Claims, Pune Division, Pune (in short the ‘Scrutiny Committee’) for verification on 13th June, 1987. The Scrutiny Committee invalidated the caste certificate by order dated 18th July, 1987. The same was challenged before the High Court in Writ Petition No. 3680/1994. The matter was remanded to the Scrutiny Committee for fresh hearing. Again by order dated 17th June, 1995 the Scrutiny Committee invalidated the caste certificate. The matter was again remanded by the High Court by order dated 7th August, 1996. The Scrutiny Committee by order dated 24th December, 1998 invalidated the caste certificate. The said order was challenged before the Bombay High Court by filing writ petition which was withdrawn with liberty to file fresh writ petition. Another writ petition was filed which was disposed of by order dated 12th April, 2001. It was prayed that enquiry proceedings were initiated by the employer, and if any adverse decision is given by the Enquiry Officer or his services are affected by any order passed by the disciplinary authority on the basis of the finding of the Enquiry Officer, liberty may be granted to challenge the legality of the order of the Scrutiny Committee and the disciplinary proceedings. The prayer was accepted and the writ petition was dismissed as withdrawn granting opportunity as afore-noted. The Enquiry Officer submitted report holding that the charges were proved and the disciplinary authority after issuing show cause notice terminated the services of respondent No.1-employee by order dated 28th February, 2002. The said order of termination was challenged before the Bombay High Court primarily on the ground that the proceedings for verification of the caste certificate were not initiated within reasonable period. The High Court found substance in such plea. It was noted that though respondent No.1-employee joined the services of the Bank 1976, the reference was made in the year 1987. It was held that the period was not reasonable for initiation of proceedings. The High Court accordingly held that the proceedings were not initiated validly. Having held so, it was further held that respondent No.1-employee does not belong to Scheduled Tribe and, therefore, was not entitled to promotion in the next higher rank. Direction was given to reinstate in the post he was appointed with continuity of service with back wages.

3. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the view taken by the High Court is clearly erroneous. The High Court has not interfered with the invalidation order of the Scrutiny Committee. The conclusions of the High Court are contrary in terms. On one hand, it has been held that the reference was not made within reasonable time. On the other hand, it has been held that respondent No. 1 did not belong to Scheduled Tribe. This conclusion obviously is based on the order of invalidation passed by the Scrutiny Committee. When an action is founded on fraud the question of any reasonable period for initiation of action is cle

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2005 Supreme(SC) 1183

Important pointWhere appointment to a post was obtained on basis of a caste certificate which was invalid, mere delayed reference would not affect legality of reference.

Cases Referred (4)

Important point
Where appointment to a post was obtained on basis of a caste certificate which was invalid, mere delayed reference would not affect legality of reference.