Service protection granted by a competent court and affirmed by the Supreme Court attains finality; subsequent administrative findings on caste status cannot be used to terminate services, as it violates the principles of res judicata and finality of litigation.

Digitally signed by VISHAKHA BEOHAR

(Cause-title taken from the Case Information System)

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

CAV Order

1. The instant petition has been preferred challenging the termination order dated 14.09.2023 passed by respondent No. 3, despite the fact that the services of the petitioner had already been protected by this Hon’ble Court vide order dated 01.07.2016 passed in WPS No. 616/2016, which order stands affirmed up to the Hon’ble Apex Court.

2. The sole issue involved in the present writ petition is whether the respondent authorities are legally justified in terminating the services of the petitioner on the ground that his caste certificate is of Halba-Koshti and not Halba, despite the fact that this very issue has already attained finality up to the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Earlier, pursuant to complaints regarding caste status, the petitioner’s case was examined and this Hon’ble Court in WPS No. 616/2016 by order dated 01.07.2016 granted protection to the petitioner’s service while directing that he be treated as a general category employee, which order was affirmed by the Hon’ble Division Bench in WA No. 542/2016 on 14.02.2017, and further upheld by dismissal of the State’s SLP by the Hon’ble Apex Court. Acting upon the said final adjudication, the petitioner continued in service and was even promoted in the general category; however, the respondents have now reopened the settled issue and terminated the petitioner’s services vide order dated 14.09.2023, solely on the same ground of caste status, without affording due opportunity of hearing. Such action is ex facie illegal, arbitrary, and without jurisdiction, being hit by the principles of finality of litigation and res judicata, and is squarely covered by the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Gajanan Marotrao Nimje v. RBI (2019) 12 SCC 639, which prohibits collateral disturbance of service protections already granted by final judicial orders.

3. The petitioner in the present writ petition has prayed for following reliefs:-

“10.1 That the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to set aside aside the termination order dated dated 14.09.2023 (Annexure P/1), being as illegal and bad in law.

10.2 That the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to comply with the directions issued in WPS no. 616/2016 (Annexure P/2) in its true letter and spirit.

10.3 That the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to permit the petitioner to discharge his services as a general category employee, without raising any further dispute with regard to his caste.

10.4 Any other relief, which this Hon'ble Court deems, fit in the facts and circumstances may also be granted in favour of the petitioner.”

4. Facts of the case are that the petitioner was appointed on the post of Patwari on 29.04.1998 in the erstwhile State of Madhya Pradesh under the Scheduled Tribe category on the basis of a caste certificate of “Halba” issued on 01.07.1995 by the competent authority, at a time when persons belonging to Halba-Koshti were bona fide treated as Halba due to a prevailing misconception. After the Constitution Bench judgment in State of Maharashtra v. Milind (2001), which clarified that Halba-Koshti is not a