Appointment on false caste certificate void ab initio; Scrutiny Committee findings binding; no right to service continuation despite length of service or equity.

JUDGMENT :

1. This intra-court appeal has been preferred by the appellant assailing the judgment and order dated 25.04.2017 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition (S/S) No. 1872 of 2015, Hukum Singh v. Uttarakhand Transport Corporation Ltd. & Others, whereby the writ petition filed by the appellant came to be dismissed.

2. Brief facts of the case, as per record, are that the appellant was initially appointed as a Driver in the erstwhile Uttar Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (UPSRTC) under the Scheduled Caste quota vide appointment order dated 27.07.1995, on the basis of a caste certificate claiming that he belonged to Dom caste, a notified Scheduled Caste. His services were subsequently regularised on 07.05.1999. In the year 2009, doubts were raised regarding the genuineness of the caste certificate produced by the appellant at the time of his initial appointment. Upon such doubts being raised, the matter was referred to the office of the District Magistrate, Dehradun, for verification. The District Magistrate, vide order dated 08.05.2009, directed the concerned Tehsildar to conduct an enquiry into the caste status of the appellant. The Tehsildar submitted an interim report dated 26.09.2009 and a final report dated 06.10.2009. However, being dissatisfied with the findings recorded therein, the District Magistrate constituted a Caste Scrutiny Committee for a detailed examination of the issue. Meanwhile, the services of the appellant were terminated vide order dated 26.10.2009, which was challenged by him in Writ Petition (S/S) No. 1101 of 2009. The said writ petition was allowed by this Court vide judgment dated 03.05.2013, solely on the ground of violation of principles of natural justice, while granting liberty to the respondents to proceed afresh in accordance with law after cancellation of the caste certificate. In compliance thereof, the appellant was reinstated in service, and the matter of caste verification was placed before the duly constituted Scrutiny Committee, which, after examining documentary evidence, village records, statements of the Gram Pradhan and other relevant materials, submitted its report dated 20.08.2014, categorically holding that the appellant was a resident of Village Danola, he belonged to Rawat/Rajput caste and no person named Hukum Singh s/o Madan Singh, belonging to Dom caste, was residing in Village Danola, as claimed by the appellant, and the caste certificate relied upon by the appellant was obtained by misrepresentation and was not genuine. Consequent thereto, a show-cause notice was issued to the appellant. After considering his reply, which was found unsatisfactory, the services of the appellant were terminated vide order dated 03.03.2015. Challenging the said termination, the appellant filed Writ Petition (S/S) No. 1872 of 2015, which came to be dismissed by the learned Single Judge vide judgment dated 25.04.2017. Hence, present appeal.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the learned Single Judge failed to appreciate that the caste certificate was issued by a competent authority after due verification; that the reports of the Tehsildar dated 26.09.2009 and 06.10.2009 were ignored without assigning valid reasons; and that the Scrutiny Committee was constituted arbitrarily. It was further urged that the appellant belonged to ‘Rawat caste’, which, according to him, was a Scheduled Caste, and that the appellant was never supplied relevant documents despite applications under the Right to Information Act.

4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent-Corporation and learned State Counsel submitted that the appellant had secured appointment by fraud, having