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

2023 Supreme(Bom) 579

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR, SANDEEP V. MARNE, JJ.
Mr. Prashant D. Nikumbh - Petitioner
Versus
State of Maharashtra and Ors. - Respondents
Writ Petition (LODG.) No. 7040 Of 2023
Decided On : 23-06-2023

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Mr. Atul Damle, a/w. Mr. Yashodip Deshmukh and Mr. K. Amol i/by. Gurubala Birajdar.
For the Respondents: Mr. Milind More, Ms. Shilpa Redkar.

Suppression of material facts and misrepresentation of tribe claim can render an appointment ab-initio void, and the petitioner may not be entitled to any equitable relief.

Headnote:

Suppression of Facts - Termination of Services - Tokre Koli Scheduled Tribe - 7 July 2015 - 21 December 2019, 14 December 2022 - The court upheld the judgment and order of the Scrutiny Committee invalidating the petitioner's tribe claim and the termination order by the Municipal Corporation. The petitioner's appointment was found to be ab-initio void due to suppression of facts and misrepresentation of tribe claim. The court refused to grant the petitioner the benefit of adjustment against supernumerary posts as he had indulged in fraudulent acts.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner claimed to belong to Tokre Koli Scheduled Tribe and was issued a certificate in 2009. He secured a job as a Junior Engineer in the Water Engineering Department under the reservation category. However, his tribe claim was invalidated in 2015, and he was subsequently terminated from service for suppression of facts.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the petitioner had suppressed the fact of the invalidation of his tribe claim and secured the job by misrepresentation. The court held that the petitioner's appointment was ab-initio void and refused to grant him the benefit of adjustment against supernumerary posts.

Issues: The issues included the correctness of the judgment and order of the Scrutiny Committee invalidating the tribe claim and the validity of the termination of the petitioner's services.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the petitioner's appointment was void from its inception due to suppression of facts and misrepresentation of tribe claim. The court also refused to grant the petitioner the benefit of adjustment against supernumerary posts as he had indulged in fraudulent acts.

Final Decision: The court dismissed the writ petition and upheld the judgment and order of the Scrutiny Committee and the termination order by the Municipal Corporation. The petitioner was not granted any equitable relief.

JUDGMENT :

(Sandeep V. Marne J.):

1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent of the parties, taken up for final disposal.

2. By this petition, Petitioner challenges order dated 6 December 2022 terminating him from services of Municipal Corporation. He also challenges judgment and order dated 7 July 2015 passed by the Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Konkan Region, Thane rejecting his claim for Tokre Koli Scheduled Tribe.

3. Facts of the case, in nutshell, are that Petitioner claimed status of Tokre Koli Scheduled Tribe and was issued Certificate dated 12 June 2009 by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Thane certifying that he belongs to Tokre Koli Scheduled Tribe. He secured admission in Veermata Jijabai Technological Institute (VJTI) College under reservation category on the strength of his tribe certificate. He was called upon by VJTI College to get his Tribe Certificate verified from the Scrutiny Committee. Accordingly, VJTI submitted a proposal dated 13 September 2013 before the Scheduled Tribe Caste Scrutiny Committee, Konkan Division. During pendency of the proceedings before the Scrutiny Committee, Petitioner completed his education and was awarded B-Tech (Civil) degree.

4. An advertisement was issued by the Respondent- Municipal Corporation for filling up the posts of Junior Engineer. Petitioner applied in pursuance of the advertisement for vacancy reserved for Scheduled Tribe category. By order dated 21 November 2015 Petitioner came to be selected and appointed to the post of Junior Engineer (Civil) in the Water Engineering Department. By letter dated 13 July 2018, Municipal Corporation called him upon to submit Validity Certificate. By letter dated 4 October 2018, Petitioner communicated to the Respondent-Municipal Corporation that his proposal for scrutiny of the Certificate was pending before the Committee and that he was pursuing the said proposal. Since Petitioner failed to submit the Validity Certificate, letter dated 24 March 2021 was issued to him calling him upon to submit the Validity Certificate by 20 April 2021 failing which his services were to be adjusted against supernumerary post.

5. It appears that the Municipal Corporation noticed that the proposal for verification of Tribe Certificate of the Petitioner was already rejected. Therefore, a show cause notice dated 6 July 2021 was issued to the Petitioner calling him upon to show cause as to why his services should not be terminated. Petitioner submitted reply dated 12 July 2021 stating that since his tribe claim was invalidated by the Scrutiny Committee, his services be adjusted against supernumerary post instead of terminating him. Petitioner was issued one more show cause notice dated 18 May 2022 by the Municipal Corporation inviting his attention to the judgment and order of the Scrutiny Committee dated 7 July 2015 invalidating his tribe claim. It was alleged that despite knowledge of invalidation of the tribe claim, Petitioner suppressed the same while seeking appointment with the Municipal Corporation. He was therefore called upon to show cause why his services should not be terminated. Petitioner submitted reply dated 25 May 2022 taking defence that he had not received any order from the Scrutiny Committee rejecting his tribe claim. He requested for copy of the order of the Scrutiny Committee and once against requested for adjusting him against supernumerary post.

6. The Respondent-Municipal Corporation thereafter passed order dated 6 December 2022 terminating services of Petitioner. Petitioner made representation dated 16 January 2023 for his reinstatement in service. He has thereafter approached this Court by filing Writ Petition (Lodg) No. 3016/2023 challenging termination order. When the petition came up for hearing, a statement was made on Petitioner’s behalf that he noticed the factum of invalidation of his tribe claim only after termination of his services. He therefore expressed desire to challenge the order of the Scr

        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