IMPORTANT POINT
The invalidation of a claim to belong to a reserved category renders the appointment void ab initio, and protecting the services of a candidate found not to belong to the reserved category substantially encroaches upon the rights of genuine members of the reserved communities.

JUDGMENT :

S.N. PATHAK, J.

1. Heard the parties.

PRAYERS MADE IN WRIT PETITION:

2. The petitioner has approached this Court with a prayer for quashing the order dated 22.09.2017 (Annexure-13) passed by the respondent-authorities, in pursuant to departmental proceeding initiated against the petitioner vide Memo No. 4051 dated 10.08.2013, whereby the petitioner’s service as Deputy Superintendent of Police has been terminated.

Further prayer has been made for direction upon the respondents to reinstate the petitioner into service with all consequential benefits.

3. However, during course of arguments, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner confines his prayer to the extent that respondents be directed to consider the case of petitioner for any other punishment other than the punishment of dismissal taking into consideration the following facts:

(i) Long services rendered by the petitioner.

(ii) Observations given by the Hon’ble Patna High Court in LPA No. 708/2002 filed by the petitioner;.

(iii) Respondent’s own statement made in Para 38 of the counter-affidavit that the case of petitioner “may not be a case of obtaining employment by playing fraud.”

(iv) The caste certificate of the petitioner was never cancelled/recalled.

(v) The findings arrived by this Court in W.P. (S) No. 3288 of 2017 and LPA No. 571 of 2017, whereby atleast adoption of petitioner at the minor age of 14 years has been accepted.

FACTS OF THE CASE:

4. Shorn of unnecessary details, the petitioner was born in the year 1964 in the family belonging to Baniya community which comes under OBC category. Subsequently, the father of the petitioner had agreed to give the petitioner by way of adoption to one Rameshwar Paswan, the entire process of which was completed on 10.03.1978, i.e. at the age of 14 years. Thereafter, on the basis of affidavits sworn by the natural father and adoptive father of the petitioner both dated 04.04.1979, a caste certificate was issued in favour of the petitioner on 25.04.1979. Thereafter, the petitioner completed his studies living with his adoptive parents. It is the case of the petitioner that he qualified in the 37th Combined Civil Services Examination conducted by Bihar Public Service Commission and on the basis of fresh caste certificate issued in the year 1992, he was inducted in the Bihar Police Services to the post of Deputy Superintendent of Police as a Scheduled Caste Candidate. Thereafter, he successfully completed his training and was appointed vide notification No. 6857 dated 15.04.1993. The petitioner started discharging his duties and after lapse of nine years, all of a sudden a show-cause notice was issued to the petitioner alleging therein that he secured appointment under the respondent-Department by submitting wrong caste certificate and pursuant thereto, process of seeking concurrence from the Public Service Commission was initiated by the erstwhile State of Bihar vide letter dated 14.09.2001. The petitioner had challenged the show-cause notice along with letter dated 14.09.2001, in CWJC No. 14254 of 2001 before the Hon’ble Patna High Court, in which the petitioner succeeded.

Against the order dated 10.01.2002 passed by learned Single Judge, the erstwhile State of Bihar preferred an appeal being LPA No. 708 of 2002 and the Hon’ble Division Bench framed three issues, which are as follows:

(a) Whether the petitioner was adopted by the person belonging to Scheduled Caste category and if so whether he will be entitled for reservation?

(b) Whether the petitioner should be allowed to continue on the post of Deputy Superintendent of Police only on the ground that he has remained on that post since 1993?

(c) Whether by virtue of the marks obtained by the petitioner he is entitled to any post in the Bihar Administrative Service under any category?

Thereafter, vide its judgment dated 29.01.2023, the Hon’ble Division Bench decided first two issues against the petitioner and in respect to the third issue it is well noted fact that petit