SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2006 Supreme(Bom) 242

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
GOPAL G. NIPANE
Versus
HINDUSTAN AERONAUTICS LTD.
Decided on FEBRUARY 20, 2006

Headnote:CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, 1950 - Articles 341 and 342 Invalidation of caste/tribe certificate Person appointed against a reserved post on basis of such certificate is not entitled to protection of his services. A person who obtains a caste certificate based on fraud is not entitled to any protection. It would be no answer in such situations to contend that the entries in some documents were made by the parents and in these circumstances the child cannot suffer the consequences. The certificate being a creature of a fraud all such subsequent actions must also fail. A beneficiary of a fraudulent document cannot contend that fraud was not played by him and as such he ought to be protected. This would only be to frustrate the object of the constitutional provisions granting protection to SCs and STs. As envisaged under Articles 341 and 342 of the Constitution of India read with Articles 15 and 16. Holders of a false caste certificate should not be entitled to an equitable relief nor any interference should be made with the orders of punishment imposed or action taken for cancellation of admission. If the Constitution has to have a meaning for those whom the reservation is given considering their social and economic backwardness, Courts should not allow the extra-ordinary jurisdiction to be misused by persons claiming protection, when the admission or appointment was based on false or fraudulent certificate. The Apex Court has only made exception in a rare case where the student had already completed studies with a rider that it should be wary in considering such cases. Insofar as appointments based on fraudulent certificates, there can be no protection the protection is not available to a person, however, long years he has served or because reference for verification of caste/tribe was made after a considerable gap of time or answered after long time as long as it is found that the certificate produced is a creature of fraud. The action against the petitioner was based on the enquiry conducted by the appropriate committee which found the petitioner as not belonging to Halba S.T. His challenge to the decision of the committee was rejected upto the Apex Court. In that light of the matter Rule is discharged. 2001 (1) Mh LJ (SC) 1 : 2001 (1) SCC 4, 2004 SCC (L & S) 350 and 2005 (4) Mh LJ (SC) 409 : (2005) 7 SCC 690, Ref.

Judgment

F. I. REBELLO, J.

( 1 ) RULE. Heard forthwith. The petitioner at the time of his dismissal from service was working as Senior Manager (Customer services) with respondent No. 1. The petitioner was recruited in the service of the respondent No. 1 against a reserved post. The petitioner for that purpose produced his school leaving certificate which disclosed that the petitioner belonged to Halba Scheduled Tribe. The petitioner joined the respondent No. 1 initially as Management Trainee and was appointed by letter dated 12th August, 1978. On completion of training the petitioner joined the respondent No. 1 as grade II Officer on 12th November, 1979. On 13th November, 1983 the petitioner was promoted as Deputy Chief Inspector/deputy Manager and was promoted as Chief Inspector/manager on 11th November, 1986. The petitioner was transferred to Nasik Division as Grade IV Officer in Customer Service on 2nd April, 1994. It is the case of the petitioner that the reservation Roster Point in promotion is applicable only upto Grade IV and the petitioner was given benefit of reservation in promotion accordingly. On 1st July, 1996 he was promoted as senior Manager as Grade V Officer and was confirmed on 1st October, 1997.

( 2 ) IT is the case of the petitioner that after completion of 11 years service with respondent No. 1 the petitioners caste certificate was referred to the scrutiny Committee at Pune on 23rd February, 1989. The petitioner forwarded the necessary documents as required by the Committee. On 19th June, 1999 the petitioner received a communication from the Scheduled Tribe Scrutiny committee, Nagpur, requiring the petitioner to appear before the Committee for interview and hearing on 29th June, 1999. As the petitioner received the letter only on 28th June, 1999 it was impossible for the petitioner to collect the required data and/or documents and reach Nagpur on 29th June, 1999 for the hearing. The petitioner accordingly addressed a letter to the Scrutiny Committee and clarified the fact and sought to be represented through an Advocate. The committee, however, intimated to the petitioner, that he be available personally. The petitioner once again made a request to be represented through Advocate. According to the petitioner the Committee vide order dated 18th October, 1999 intimated the finding of the Committee that the petitioner does not belong to the halba Scheduled Tribe and as such his claim as belonging to Halba Scheduled tribe was invalidated. The petitioner preferred Writ Petition No. 2323 of 2000 at nagpur Bench. That petition came to be dismissed by order dated 19th June, 2001. It appears that the petitioner had also filed S. L. P. which has been dismissed.

( 3 ) THE petitioner thereafter received a charge memorandum dated 3rd august, 2001 containing the imputation of misconduct. The main charge was that the petitioner had been appointed and promoted against a reserved post for scheduled Tribe and that the Scrutiny Committee had held the petitioner as not belonging to Halba S. T. As the petitioner was called upon to submit a detailed reply to the charge memorandum, the petitioner filed detailed reply on 1st october, 2001 raising various grounds therein and relied on the judgment of the apex Court in State of Maharashtra vs. Milind Katware, 2001 (1) Mh. L. J. (SC) 1 = 2001 (1) SCC 4 as also other office memorandum in force from time to time issued by the Government of Maharashtra. In spite of reply the respondents proceeded with the enquiry. As such he filed Writ Petition No. 38 of 2001 before this Court. The petitioner withdrew the said petition. The disciplinary proceedings were continued and concluded on 5th June, 2003. After complying with the procedural requirements of show cause and reply a second show cause notice dated 23rd June, 2003 was issued to which he submitted his say on 11th july, 2003. By order dated 16th August, 2004 the Disciplinary Authority dismissed the petitioner from the service with immed








Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top