1. Appointment under Scheduled Tribe reservation — Invalidation of caste claims — Subsequent absorption and promotion under Special Backward Class category — Challenge to service protection. (Para 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 8 )
Back
Next 
2020 Supreme(SC) 894
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud, Sanjiv Khanna, JJ.
Vijay Kishanrao Kurundkar & Anr. - Appellants
Versus
State Of Maharashtra & Ors. - Respondents
Civil Appeal No 1865 of 2020 (Arising out of SLP(C) No. 32595 of 2018)
Decided On : 28-02-2020
Important Points
Point of Law: It is trite law that an appointment secured on basis of a fraudulent certificate is void ab initio. It is not open to government to circumvent existing statutory mandate by indefinitely protecting deceitful activities of such candidates through use of circulars or resolutions.
Subject
Employment Law - Reservation in Promotion
Headnote
Service matter - Post of Assistant Engineers Grade I - Claim to belong Halba Scheduled Tribe cert - Special Backward Class category - Appellants instituted writ proceedings before High Court seeking a declaration that protection of service granted in favour of the fifth and sixth respondents and order of promotion ought to be quashed and set aside - First appellant was promoted as an Executive Engineer. The second appellant was promoted as an Executive Engineer - Fifth respondent was subsequently promoted as Superintending Engineer. The fifth respondent has retired from service.
Finding of the Court :
Administrative circulars and government resolutions are subservient to legislative mandate and cannot be contrary either to constitutional norms or statutory principles. Where a candidate has obtained an appointment to a post on the solemn basis that he or she belongs to a designated caste, tribe or class for whom the post is meant and it is found upon verification by the Scrutiny Committee that the claim is false, the services of such an individual cannot be protected by taking recourse to administrative circulars or resolutions. Protection of claims of a usurper is an act of deviance to the constitutional scheme as well as to statutory mandate.
Result: Appeal disposed of
Legal Category Hierarchy
Advocates appeared:
Mr. Sudhanshu S. Choudhari, Advocate, Mr. Mahesh Shinde, Advocate, Mr. Yogesh Kolke, , Advocate, Mr. C. Govind Venugopal, Advocate, for the Appellants; Mr. Sachin Patil, Advocate, Mr. Rahul Chitnis, Advocate, Mr. Aaditya A. Pande, Advocate, Mr. Geo Joseph, Advocate, Mr. Amol Nirmalkumar Suryawanshi, Advocate., for the Respondents
Mr. Sudhanshu S. Choudhari, Advocate, Mr. Mahesh Shinde, Advocate, Mr. Yogesh Kolke, , Advocate, Mr. C. Govind Venugopal, Advocate, for the Appellants; Mr. Sachin Patil, Advocate, Mr. Rahul Chitnis, Advocate, Mr. Aaditya A. Pande, Advocate, Mr. Geo Joseph, Advocate, Mr. Amol Nirmalkumar Suryawanshi, Advocate., for the Respondents
Table of Contents
2. Challenge to the legality of protecting service and promotions of candidates with invalidated caste claims — Dispute regarding the deemed date of seniority. (Para 6 , 9 , 10 )
3. Administrative resolutions cannot override constitutional or statutory norms to protect candidates who obtained appointments through false caste claims, as this harms genuine reserved category members. (Para 7 , 11 )
4. Appointments obtained via fraudulent certificates are void ab initio and cannot be protected by administrative circulars or government resolutions. (Para 11 , 12 )
5. High Court judgment set aside — Second appellant granted a deemed date of seniority for the post of Executive Engineer. (Para 13 )
6. Can government resolutions protect employees whose caste or tribe claims were found false?
No. Administrative circulars and government resolutions are subservient to legislative mandates and constitutional norms. They cannot protect individuals who obtained appointments through false claims, as such protection encroaches upon the legal rights of genuine members of reserved communities. (Para 11 )
7. What is the legal status of an appointment obtained using a fraudulent caste certificate?
An appointment secured on the basis of a fraudulent certificate is void ab initio. The government cannot circumvent statutory mandates by using circulars or resolutions to protect the deceitful activities of such candidates. (Para 12 )
8. How is the effect of a larger bench decision interpreted when a previous decision is not specifically named?
A decision by a larger bench can impliedly overrule a previous decision if its observations and legal principles contradict the earlier ruling, even if the earlier case was not specifically adverted to. (Para 11 )
ORDER
1. Leave granted.
2. This appeal arises from a judgment and order of a Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay dated 16 April 2018. The fifth and sixth respondents were appointed as Assistant Engineers Grade I against a post reserved for the Scheduled Tribe category on 31 July 1991. Both of them claimed to belong to the Halba Scheduled Tribe.
3. The appellants were appointed as Assistant Engineers Grade I on 20 May 2000 on a post reserved for the Special Backward Class category.
4. The claims of the fifth and sixth respondents of belonging to a Scheduled Tribe were invalidated by the Scrutiny Committee on 14 May 2001 and 16 May 2001respectively.
5. The Government of Maharashtra, by its resolutions dated 10 March 2004 and 12 March 2004, treated the fifth and sixth respondents as belonging to a Special Backward Class category and they were absorbed on 23 August 2004 on that basis. On 4 September 2006, the fifth respondent was promoted as Executive Engineer. The sixth respondent was promoted as Executive Engineer on 1 November 2007.
6. The appellants instituted writ proceedings [1] before the High Court seeking a declaration that the protection of service granted in favour of the fifth and sixth respondents and the order of promotion ought to be quashed and set aside. The first appellant was promoted as an Executive Engineer on 13 July 2017. The second appellant was promoted as an Executive Engineer on 5 December 2015. The fifth respondent was subsequently promoted as Superintending Engineer on 13 July 2017. The fifth respondent has retired from service on 30 June 2018.
[1] Writ Petition No 6589 of 2011
7. The High Court, by its impugned judgment and order dated 16 April 2018, held that the decision of this Court in Punjab National Bank vs. Vilas Govindrao Bokade , (2008) 14 SCC 545 has not been specifically overruled by the decision of a three-Judge Bench of this Court in Chairman and Managing Director, Food Corporation of India vs. Jagdish Balaram Bahira , (2017) 8 SCC 6708 . In this view of the matter, it came to the conclusion that the fifth and sixth respondents, who had entered service prior to the appellants, were entitled to be protected notwithstanding the invalidation of their claim to belong to a member of the Scheduled Tribe.
8. During the pendency of these proceedings, the State government has issued a GR dated 21 December 2019, a copy of which has been placed on record. The Court has been apprised of the fact that the effect of the GR is that persons, such as the sixth respondent, who were appointed on the basis of a claim to belong to a Scheduled Tribe which has been invalidated, would be continued in service on a temporary basis for a period of eleven months.
9. Mr Sudhanshu Choudhary, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants, states that with the above GR, the grievance of the appellants has been substantially met, save and except, in regard to the deemed date of seniority.
10. An affidavit has been filed during the course of the proceedings on behalf of the State of Maharashtra in which it has been stated thus:
"Hence, if Mr Parate and Barapatre had not been there, petitioners were not the only officers entitled for ad-hoc promotion. However, in regular promotion from the Special Backward class category, Mr Sant, the only Petitioner would have got the promotion in lieu of Mr Parate as another post was already occupied by Mr Dharane, Senior Executive Engineer, who also belongs to Special Backward Class."
Hence, it has been stated that if the sixth respondent, Digambar Ganpatrao Barapatre, is not to be considered as a Special Backward Class candidate, one of the two appellants, namely, the second appellant, would be entitled to a deemed date of 30 June 2018 in respect of the post of the Executive Engineer.
11. In view of the above clarification, which has been furnished on behalf of the State government, the present controversy has come to a close. However, we would also briefly
