Provisional appointment on false caste certificate is void ab initio; termination without inquiry valid per appointment terms, no Article 311 protection applies as fraud vitiates service from inception.

ORDER

Justice K. Haripal, Judicial Member:

The applicant was appointed as Watchman in the Office of the Andaman & Nicobar Lakshadweep Harbour Works Department by Annexure A-3 Order dated 01.05.2001. He was on probation for a period of two years. The grievance of the applicant is that while continuing on probation, without conducting any inquiry or giving any notice, he was terminated from service by order at Annexure A-4 dated 20.10.2003.

2. Aggrieved by the same, the applicant has approached this Tribunal seeking to quash Annexure A-4 and to reinstate him in service immediately with all back wages.

3. According to the applicant, the respondents had notified 10 vacancies of Watchman, out of which 7 were for General Category and 3 for OBCs. The applicant was 3^rd in the merit list and was considered against General Category. The termination was an utter shock to him. He being a native of Tamilnadu, immediately he approached the Hon’ble High Court of Tamilnadu at Madras and obtained an order of interim stay and thus he was reinstated in service. Thereafter, in Annexure A-11 order dated 27.07.2018, the Writ Petition was dismissed and then he approached this Tribunal with the instant Original Application for quashing the termination proceedings and to grant him all benefits. According to him, action should have been initiated only following the procedures established by law, that he has been terminated without even giving any notice, which is illegal. He also filed a petition for condoning the delay.

4. The respondents have filed reply objecting the long delay in instituting the O.A. and said that the applicant is not entitled to get any relief. According to them, the applicant had claimed himself as a member of the OBC community and produced Annexure R-1 Community certificate, along with his application. In the order of appointment itself it was said that the appointment is provisional, subject to verification of the documents produced by him. The caste certificate was sent for verification and ultimately it was found that he does not belong to OBC community. Thus after obtaining leave of the Deputy Chief Engineer, he has been terminated which cannot be challenged by him and the O.A. is sure to be dismissed. Thereafter, the applicant filed a rejoinder reiterating the earlier contentions.

5. We heard the Ld. Counsel for the applicant, Smt. Anjili Nag, who very emphatically submitted that, whatever may be the status of the applicant, whether a contract employee or an un-discharged probationer, he should have been terminated only after following the procedures established by law. In support of the contention, the learned Counsel has relied on the decision reported in V.P. Ahuja v. State of Punjab [(2000) 3 SCC 239]. Regarding the contention that a probationer’s service can be terminated only by following the rules prescribed, even if the date of probation was extended, the Annexure A/4 order, on the face of it is illegal and liable to be quashed and the applicant is entitled to continue in service. The learned Counsel also relied on the decision in Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation and another v. S. Manjunath [(2000) 5 SCC 250].

6. On the other hand, Shri V.D.S. Balan, learned Standing Counsel submitted that the appointment was made since he had claimed himself a member of the OBC community which was found to be false, so that Ahuja’s case (quoted supra) is not applicable in the facts of the case. The a