Protection of appointment based on a false caste certificate is a deviation from the constitutional scheme and statutory mandate, and no government resolution or circular can override constitutional or statutory norms.

JUDGMENT:

R. Devdas, J.

The appellant-Insurance Company is before this Court assailing the order dated 13.06.2018 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.49692/2016.

2. The appellants herein invited applications for appointment to the post of 'Assistant', which was reserved for Scheduled Tribe category. The first respondent herein produced a caste certificate dated 31.08.1978 which stated that the first respondent belonged to "Jenu Kuruba" community which is a Scheduled Tribe category. Based on the said claim, the first respondent was appointed as Assistant. It is contended that the first respondent was suspended from service on 20.01.2012, on an allegation that he had produced a false caste certificate at the time of seeking employment. It is further contended by the first respondent that he was due to retire on 31.01.2012.

3. The first respondent approached this Court in W.P.Nos.2888-2890/2012. However, since the first respondent attained the age of superannuation, the learned Single Judge held that the order of suspension merged with the order of superannuation and therefore, the petitions do not survive for consideration. Keeping all contentions open, the writ petitions were disposed of.

4. Thereafter, the first respondent filed W.P.No.37905/2012, seeking a direction to the appellant herein to release the terminal benefits. The said writ petition was disposed of with a direction to the appellant to consider the case of the first respondent and grant benefits if there are no other legal impediments. Consequently, vide communication dated 12.12.2012, the appellant herein informed the first respondent that the veracity of his caste certificate was pending consideration before the authorities and therefore till the proceedings were concluded, the question of paying the retirement benefits will not arise. The communication dated 12.12.2012 was challenged before this Court in W.P.No.46918/2013. By order dated 02.12.2014, the learned Single Judge declined to grant the relief and held that the first respondent must await the decision of the Social Welfare Department over the adjudication of false caste certificate.

5. The District Caste Verification Committee, which is arrayed as the second respondent herein, inquired into the matter and by order dated 16.05.2015, held that the first respondent herein belongs to 'Kuruba community' and not 'Jenu Kuruba community' and he did not belong to a Scheduled Tribe category. However, it was observed that the State Government had issued a Circular No.SWD 713 SAD 93 dated 11.03.2002 and in terms of the said Circular, the first respondent had surrendered the caste certificate, therefore, the caste certificate was cancelled and the first respondent was entitled for retiral benefits and no criminal proceedings could be taken against the first respondent. In view of the orders passed by the District Caste Verification Committee, the first respondent requested the appellant herein to release the retirement benefits. A legal notice dated 23.08.2016 was also caused to the appellant herein. Since there was no response from the appellant to the legal notice, the first respondent preferred the instant writ petition in W.P.No.49692/2016 with a prayer to direct the appellant herein to release all the pensionary benefits forthwith along with 6% interest p.a. from the date of retirement till the date of payment. By order dated 13.06.2018 the learned Single Judge allowed the petition and directed the appellant herein to pay the retirement benefits to the first respondent herein, along with interest at 6% p.a. from 16.03.2015 (the date on which the District Caste Verification Committee passed the order) till payment, within six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order, failing which, it shall carry interest at 12% p.a. thereafter till payment.

6. By order dated 29.10.2018, this Court stayed the operation of the order dated 13.06.2018, passed by the learned Single Judge. Thereafter from time to time