IMPORTANT POINT
The court established that employment in public service must comply with the eligibility criteria, and any misrepresentation or failure to provide valid documentation can lead to termination without recourse.

JUDGMENT

M. M. Sathaye, J. - Rule. Affidavit of service is filed. Learned Senior Advocate appearing for the Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 waives service. Rule is made returnable forthwith, taken up for final disposal by consent.

2. By this Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the Petitioner is seeking to quash and set aside the impugned termination order dated 28 August 2017 issued by the Respondent No. 2 (Chief General Manager in-charge of HRM Department, Reserve Bank of India - Respondent No. 3) and is further seeking directions to the Respondent No. 3 - Reserve Bank of India (RBI) to reinstate the Petitioner in the service in the same designation as he was serving on the date of termination and further seeking directions to pay full arrears of salary and other benefits till re-instatement.

CASE

3. The Petitioner applied to RBI for the post of Officer Grade-B (Direct Recruit) disclosing that he is a person with physical disability and also that he belonged to Hindu Thakur Scheduled Tribe (ST). Under letter dated 28 January 2014, the Petitioner was called for interview. Before the interview, on 10 April 2014, the concerned Caste/Tribe Scrutiny Committee invalidated the Petitioner's caste certificate and confiscated the same. On 22 April 2014, the Petitioner visited the office of the Respondent No. 3 for interview. According to the Petitioner, he informed the concerned officer of the RBI regarding cancellation of the cast certificate. But this is a contentious issue. On 29 May 2014, the Petitioner received an 'offer of appointment' letter and on 2 June 2014 the Petitioner accepted the offer by sending acceptance letter. On 19 June 2014, RBI issued recruitment letter asking him to report at Chennai for induction training. On 6 August 2014, the Petitioner received an email from the Respondent No. 3 asking him to submit his caste/tribe certificate and validity certificate. On 7 March 2017, a show cause notice was issued to the Petitioner asking him why his services should not be terminated on account of invalidation of caste claim by the Scrutiny Committee. The Petitioner addressed a detailed reply dated 24 March 2017 to the show cause notice. On 28 August 2017, the impugned termination order was passed. After the impugned order, the Petitioner's father addressed a letter dated 20 December 2017 to the Governor requesting him to look into the Petitioner's termination contending that it is on incorrect grounds. On 1 January 2018, the Respondent No. 3 -RBI replied confirming its decision of termination. It is in these circumstances that the Petitioner has approached this Court.

4. Reply-affidavit has been filed by the Assistant General Manager of the Respondent No. 3-Reserve Bank of India dated 16 December 2022 on behalf of the Respondent No. 2 and 3 opposing the Petition. A preliminary objection is raised contending that RBI has not violated any fundamental rights and legal rights of the Petitioner and therefore, the present Petition is not maintainable. It is contended that the Petition is not maintainable because the Petitioner has no statutory or legal right that can be enforced. It is contended that the Petitioner is guilty of suppressing the material facts and making false statements and has not come to the Court with clean hands. It is contended that disputed question of facts are involved in the Petition, which cannot be adjudicated under writ jurisdiction of this Court.

5. It is inter alia contended that RBI has rules and regulations in place for recruitment against regular vacancies in different classes of its employees and the governing rules and regulations are within constitutional parameters. It is contended that appointment, probation and termination of service of various categories of staff are governed by the provisions of Reserve Bank of India (Staff) Regulations, 1948 (for short 'the said Regulations'). It is contended that under paragraph no. 3 of the call letter for interview (dated 15 April 2014) it is