Misrepresentation of caste status for employment constitutes fraud and justifies termination of service. The Kerala (Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes) Regulation of Issue of Community Certificates Act, 1996, allows for cancellation of appointments obtained based on false community certificates.

JUDGMENT :

Shaffique, J.

Writ Appeal No.1954/15 is filed by the 3rd respondent in WP (C) No. 11146/2009 and Writ Appeal No. 2470/15 is filed by the respondents 1 and 2 in the said writ petition challenging judgment dated 20/3/2015.

2. The 1st respondent in the appeals filed writ petition seeking to quash Exts.P2, P8, P9 and P10 and for a direction to the 3rd respondent to reinstate the petitioner in service with all consequential benefits and certain other reliefs were also sought for.

3. The short facts involved in the writ petition would disclose that the 1st respondent in the appeals, who is hereinafter referred to as the petitioner, claimed to belong to Bakuda Community which is recognized as a Scheduled Caste Community. It is stated that at the time of admission to the school, his community status was entered as Mala Araya which is a Scheduled Tribe Community. The entry regarding the caste status came to be revealed in the caste certificates of the petitioner and his brothers. According to the petitioner, he or his siblings were not aware of the mistake. It was at the time of their marriage it was known that they belong to Scheduled Caste community as members from the Mala Araya refused to give their girls in marriage to a person belonging to Bakuda Community. In the meantime, on the basis of an anonymous complaint, KIRTADS had conducted an enquiry about the caste status of the petitioner and his brothers. They gave a reply explaining and admitting the fact that they were Scheduled caste members belonging to Bakuda community. Their forefathers had migrated to Idukki and that the wrong entries in the caste certificate or in the school register were made by Christian missionaries and they are not involved in the matter. However, the 1st respondent issued a show cause to the petitioner and his brothers specifically stating, as to why the ST claim should not be refused. Petitioner submitted necessary explanation to the same and indicated that they are not enjoying or claiming the status of Scheduled Tribe from next generation onwards. However, proceedings were issued by the 2nd respondent directing the concerned departments to take appropriate action in the matter. Petitioners sought for sympathetic consideration on the ground that they were actually not responsible for the entries made in the admission register as Scheduled Tribe community. Since no action was taken in the matter, petitioner and his brothers filed OP NO.17296/2001 challenging Ext.P2 order of the 2nd respondent. The OP was disposed of as per judgment dated 17/3/2006 with a direction to the 1st respondent to consider and pass appropriate orders in the light of the judgment in Prakash v. State of Kerala (2002 (2) KLT 580). Petitioner was directed to appear before the Scrutiny committee on 5/4/2008. Petitioner's brother attended the hearing and had submitted the necessary facts. However, no orders were passed in the matter. In the meantime, petitioner was working as member of the Audit party at Erattupetta Branch, State Bank of Travancore. He was served with letter dated 30/3/2009 intimating that his service has been terminated and informing him that he will not be entitled for any terminal benefits. Petitioner submits that he has come to know that the 2 nd respondent has passed an order dated 31/1/2009 to reject the Scheduled Tribe status of the petitioner and his brothers and it was decided to recover the amount from the petitioner which his family members have unduly enjoyed as Scheduled tribe members. Ext.P9 is the said order dated 31/1/2009. Ext.P9 has been accepted by the Government and direction had been issued to prosecute the petitioner and his brothers in terms of Government Order dated 31/1/2009. Petitioner therefore challenges the orders by which his service was terminated and proposed action was taken against him in terms of Exts.P8, P9 and P10.

4. Counter affidavit is filed by 3rd respondent inter alia stating that vigilance officer has stated in Ext.P1