JUDGMENT :

K.M. JOSEPH, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. By the impugned order, the High Court has dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellant against the order passed by the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal, Bengaluru rejecting the OA filed by the appellant against the order dated 24.03.2014. By order dated 24.03.2014, the respondent-State has purported to terminate the services of the appellant on the basis that the appellant was found to not belong to the Scheduled Tribe community purporting to belong to which the appellant applied and was given appointment. Further by the impugned order, the appellant has been called upon to pay the amounts which she has received.

3. Heard Mr. S. N. Bhat, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant, and Mr. V. N. Raghupathy, learned counsel appearing for the respondent.

4. Learned senior counsel for the appellant would submit that the High Court has proceeded on the basis of the judgment of this Court reported in Chairman and Managing Director, Food Corporation of India and Others v. Jagdish Balaram Bahira and Others 2017(8) SCC 670. The complaint is that the High Court has not examined the scope of The Karnataka Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes (Reservation of Appointments, etc.) Act, 1990 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Act’ for brevity) and The Karnataka Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes (Reservation of Appointment, etc.) Rules, 1992 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Rules’ for brevity).

5. He would draw our attention to Sections 4(1) and 4(4) of the Act which reads as follows:

“4. Reservation of appointments or posts etc.- (1) After the appointed day, while making appointments to any office in a civil service of the State of Karnataka or to a civil post under the State of Karnataka, appointments or posts shall be reserved for the members of the Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and other Backward Classes to such extent and in such manner as may be specified from time to time in the order made by the Government under clause (4) of Article 16 of the Constitution of India.

xxx xxx xxx

(4) All appointments made in contravention of the provisions of this section shall be voidable.”

On the basis of the same, he pointed out Section 4(4) contemplates that the appointment in contravention of Section 4(1) is not void, but it will be voidable. This goes to the root of the matter and had it been a case where the law declares it would be void, it would have been different. In conjunction with this aspect of the matter, learned senior counsel would complain again that no notice was served on the appellant before the order of termination was issued. He would, undoubtedly, point out that under the Act and the Rules, authorities have purported to find that the appellant did not deserve appointment under the quota of reservation made for the Scheduled Tribe community. He would submit that appellant was at the time, under the impression that the appellant whose caste is ‘Talawara’, was to be treated as belonging to the ‘Hindu Tokare Koli’ community which is a Scheduled Tribe.

Thereafter, he took us to the judgment of this Court in Chairman and Managing Director, Food Corporation of India and Others (supra). He would point out that the principles enunciated in the said case countenancing recovery of the benefits received may not be applicable. In this regard, he harnessed the plea that there was no fraud practiced by the appellant in securing the appointment in question and the Scheduled Tribe certificate. Therefore, this would warrant his submission that no recovery should be made. In fact, besides pointing out that even the termination was illegal as it was done without following the principles of nature justice, he would point out that had the appellant been provided with an opportunity, she could have placed circumstances which may have dissuaded the