Back
2015 Supreme(AP) 473
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD
A. RAJASHEKER REDDY, J.
M. Saroja Devi – Appellant
Versus
Syndicate Bank rep. by its Chairman and Managing Director & Another – Respondents
Writ Petition No. 1158 of 2002
Decided On : 30.07.2015
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner:Dr. P.B. Vijay Kumar, Advocate.
For the Respondents:A. Krishnam Raju, Advocate.
Headnote:
Community and the Tahsildar – Caste – Employment – Reservation under – Petitioner that she belong caste which has been classified as Scheduled Tribe Community and the Kurnool issued Caste Certificate on the basis of which, she joined in the respondent Bank as clerk and rendered service without any blemish. On a reference made by the Respondent Bank to the District Collector, Kurnool, the Collector vide proceedings Rc.C6/2026/M/2000, has confirmed that the Caste Certificate issued to the petitioner on the date of appointment as genuine, but it has also been mentioned in the above proceedings that the said caste has been subsequently deleted from the reserved category. While so, the respondent Bank addressed letter to the District Collector, Kurnool to verify the social status of the petitioner. A show-cause notice was served on the petitioner by the District Collector, Kurnool, directing her to appear before the Joint Collector and Chairman of the Scrutiny Committee, Kurnool for personal hearing and for production of documentary evidence in support of her caste. Accordingly, she appeared before the authorities and produced Caste Certificate issued by the and first page of her father’s service register –Held, It was then contended by learned senior counsel for the appellant that since the appellant has rendered about 27 years of service the order of dismissal be substituted by an order of compulsory retirement or removal from service to protect the benefits of the appellant. We do not find any substance in this submission, as well rights to salary, pension and other service benefits are entirely statutory in nature in public service. Appellant obtained the appointment against a post meant for a reserved candidate by producing a false caste certificate and by playing a fraud. His appointment to the post was void and non in the eyes of law right to salary or pension after retirement flow from a valid and legal appointment. consequential right of pension and monetary benefits can be given only if the appointment was valid and legal. Such benefits cannot be given in a case where the appointment was found to have been obtained fraudulently and rested on false caste certificate. A person who entered the service by producing a false caste certificate and obtained appointment for the post meant for Scheduled Caste thus depriving the genuine Scheduled Caste of appointment to that post does not deserve any sympathy or indulgence of this Court. A person who seeks equity must come with clean hands. He, who comes to the Court with false claims, cannot plead equity nor the Court would be justified to exercise equity jurisdiction in his favour – writ petition is allowed.
1. It is the case of the petitioner that she belong to Valmiki caste which has been classified as Scheduled Tribe Community and the Tahsildar, Kurnool issued Caste Certificate dated 03.06.1974, on the basis of which, she joined in the respondent Bank as clerk on 23.04.1977 and rendered service without any blemish. On a reference made by the Respondent Bank to the District Collector, Kurnool, the Collector vide proceedings Rc.C6/2026/M/2000, dated 06.07.2001 has confirmed that the Caste Certificate issued to the petitioner on the date of appointment as genuine, but it has also been mentioned in the above proceedings that the said Valmiki caste has been subsequently deleted from the reserved category.
2. While so, the respondent Bank addressed letter dated 20.06.2000 to the District Collector, Kurnool to verify the social status of the petitioner. A show-cause notice dated 10.10.2000 was served on the petitioner by the District Collector, Kurnool, directing her to appear before the Joint Collector and Chairman of the Scrutiny Committee, Kurnool on 22.10.2000 for personal hearing and for production of documentary evidence in support of her caste. Accordingly, she appeared before the authorities on 22.10.2000 and produced Caste Certificate dated 03.06.1974 issued by the Tahsildar and first page of her father’s service register. But thereafter, the District Collector, Kurnool, came to the conclusion that the petitioner belong to Boya Caste under BC ‘A’ Group and cancelled the Caste Certificate issued to the petitioner vide proceedings D.Dis.(C8)2036/M/2000, dated 26.11.2001. Basing on the said proceedings, the respondent Bank resorted to terminate the appointment of the petitioner vide proceedings 81/ZOH PS (AS)/IF 230445, dated 09.01.2002. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition is filed.
3. Counter affidavit is filed by the respondent Bank denying the averments of the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition stating that the petitioner has alternative remedy of appeal for challenging the cancellation of Caste Certificate under Rule 11 (2) of G.O.Ms.No.58 S/W Department (J), dated 12.06.1997 and without availing the same, the petitioner cannot file the writ petition, as such, the same has to be dismissed on that sole ground. It is stated that the petitioner was appointed on the basis of her declaration in the records of Bank that she belong to Schedule Tribes Community but it turned out that her declaration and the certificate, which she produced at the time of her appointment in support of her declaration is not genuine. The District Collector in his proceedings dated 26.11.2001 while canceling the Caste Certificate of the petitioner clearly held that the petitioner does not belong to Schedule Tribes Community and that when once the Certificate produced is proved/held as not genuine, there is no need for the management to hold any further enquiry. As per the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Kumari Madhuri Patil v. Addl. Commissioner (2004) 2 Supreme Court Cases 105), the Management can act on the basis of the cancellation of certificate by the Chairman of the scrutiny committee without holding an enquiry, as such, there is no need to hold any enquiry, as contended by the petitioner. When it is held that the petitioner did not belong to Schedule Tribe Community, her appointment has become void ab-initio and there is no need to permit the petitioner to undergo Voluntary retirement under Voluntary Retirement Scheme. It is stated that the question of accepting her application under Voluntary Retirement Scheme arises only when the employment of the petitioner is valid in the eye of law. It is stated that thorough enquiry/investigation was conducted by the Caste Scrutiny Committee after giving full and fair opportunity to the petitioner, as such, it is not correct to state that without giving any opportunity to the petitioner, the enquiry was conducted. The petitioner has not impleaded the District Collect
