JUDGMENT :

Biren Vaishnav, J.

1. In both these petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the challenge is to the show cause notices dated 10.03.2021 and 31.03.2021 respectively, by which, the petitioners have been asked to show cause as to why their services be not terminated on the ground of they being void ab initio.

2. Facts of Special Civil Application No. 6574 of 2021 shall be considered.

2.1. The petitioner was engaged as an Apprentice in the trade of Machinist for one year from 26.09.1995 to 25.09.1996 with the respondent Electricity Company. By another order dated 08.10.2007, the petitioner was appointed as Vidhyut Sahayak (Helper) on the reserved post of SEBC Community. By an order dated 18.11.2010, the petitioner was taken on a regular establishment as Vidhyut Sahayak (Helper) on the basis of his SEBC Certificate. On 20.05.2011, the petitioner was appointed as Machinist, Grade-III based on the In-house recruitment procedure.

2.2. It appears that on the basis of the complaint filed before His Excellency, the Governor of Gujarat, an inquiry into the validity of the Caste Certificate of the petitioner was inquired into. The Scrutiny Committee by a report found that the Caste Certificate obtained by the petitioner of he being "Hindu-Baraiya" from the District Social Welfare officer, Anand, on 10.09.2007 was not valid and the same was therefore cancelled. That became a subject matter of challenge by filing Special Civil Application No.1283 of 2013 and allied matters. A co-ordinate Bench of this Court by judgment dated 03.04.2013 dismissed the petition. On an appeal being filed by the petitioner, the Division Bench of this Court by an oral judgment dated 24.02.2015 dismissed the appeal with certain observations. On a challenge to the order before the Supreme Court, the Supreme Court by an order dated 26.04.2019, affirmed the order of the High Court.

3. The Gujarat State Electricity Corporation Limited, respondent No.1, issued a show cause notice dated 10.03.2021 referred to hereinabove which is a subject matter of challenge.

4. Mr.T.R.Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner, would make the following submission:

4.1 The petitioner was engaged as an Apprentice for a period of one year in 1995-1996. His date of birth was 27.02.1974 and the age therefore on the date of he being engaged as an Apprentice, was 22 years.

4.2 The show cause notice proceeds on the assumption that the appointment of the petitioner was obtained by fraud. Inviting the attention of the Court to the operative portion of the oral judgment of the Division Bench, Mr.Mishra, learned counsel, would submit that the Division Bench clearly clarified that the appeals are not being dismissed on the ground that the appellants have resorted to fraud. The appellants ought to be accomodated on the posts of Vidhyut Sahayaks in general category. Accordingly, the show cause notice is on the fact of it contrary to a final finding of fact that appointments of the petitioner and the consequential termination cannot be on the basis of a finding that the appointments were fraudulently obtained.

4.3 Mr.Mishra, learned counsel, would extensively read paras 15 onwards of the decision in the case of Kavita Solunke v. State of Maharashtra & Ors., rendered in Civil Appeal No.5821 of 2012 dated 09.08.2012. Relying on para 15 he would submit that once there is no acquisition that the Certificate was false or fabricated, there is no reason why the benefit of protection against ouster should not be extended, particularly when the petitioners are in service for over ten years.

4.4 Mr.Mishra, learned counsel, would extensively rely on para 5 of the pleadings in the petition and submit that a hyper technical view is being taken with a mala fide intention. The show cause notice proceeds on the assumption that as a general category candidate, the petitioner when appointed was over the age of 35 years which is in fact incorrect. Taking his date of birth as 27.02.1974, he was only 33