JUDGMENT - N.J. PANDYA, J.:---The petitioner entered the Government service initially under order dated 10-8-76 Annexure V. page 17 and later on came to be selected by the State Public Service Commission and therefore an appointment order Annexure XII page 25 came to be issued on 9-7-82. This followed by a confirmation order page 31 Annexure XIV dated 10-2-86.

2. Accordingly the petitioner was rendering services in the Health Department of the State of Maharashtra as Class II Officer.

3. The petitioner received an order on or about 25-4-86 at page 33 Annexure XV-A intimating him that his services are terminated because his caste claim has been invalidated.

4. The grievance of the petitioner is well founded against that order. The order does not reveal as to who scrutinised the claim, how it was scrutinised when it was done and whether the petitioner was ever intimated the decision of this exercise. There is no case whatsoever of petitioner having been given an opportunity by any of the authorities.

4A. We may mention here that in spite of issuance of Rule in the year 1986 till date no return is filed.

5. The initial appointment order of 1976 does contain conditions at page 17 onwards but is silent about the scrutiny of caste claim. As against that the appointment order which came to be issued after the selection of the petitioner by the Public Service Commission does state that the claim of the petitioner as to the caste will be scrutinised and his appointment is subject to that scrutiny. The first paragraph of that order page 25 Annexure XII, the first four lines make his position clear.

6. In this background, if at all the authorities wanted to scrutinise the claim, it is expected that it should have been done as early as possible and certainly before the confirmation order is issued. This is not to say issuance of confirmation order will preclude the Government from examining the claim, if in a given case circumstance is so warranted. It is a State Government who appoints the petitioner on the condition that his claim as to the caste is liable to be valid. It is that very Government which proceeds to confirm the employee and after confirmation comes out with an order that his claim is found to be invalid. Almost four years time was available between the date of appointment and the date of confirmation during which this exercise could have been done.

7. Looking to the date of the impugned order which is dated 25-4-86 and when compared with the confirmation order dated 10-2-86, probably the process of confirmation and the process of scrutiny were undertaken simultaneously, independent of each other and running parallel probably ignorant of each other.

8. The hardship of a confirmed employee under the circumstances can well be understood. It is therefore observed that in a case where the Government has reserved its right to scrutinise the caste claim, it shall do so within reasonable time and in absence of any time limit fixed, we feel that reasonable limit should be two years. This limit we are fixing on the basis that ordinarily as a matter of rule while appointing a Government servant, the State Government puts them on probation for a period of two years.

9. So far as the petitioner is concerned, further directions are required to be issued in the background of he started service in the year 1976, selected by the State Public Service Commission in the year 1982 and confirmed in the month of February 1986, facing termination because of the scrutiny in April 96.

10. We therefore direct that if the authorities want to scrutinise his caste claim, they shall do so within a period of three months from the date of receipt of this order in order to see that agony of the petitioner is not prolonged any further. Authenticated copy of this order is permitted to be served on the authorities by the Assistant Government Pleader so that if at all any process is started, they may commence it within the time limit stated above. The petitioner

Click Here to Read the rest of this document