IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO.2036 OF 2006

O.N.G.C. LTD.

Appellant(s)

Versus

B. UMA & ORS.

Respondent(s)

O R D E R

We have heard learned counsel for the parties.

This appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment and

order dated 27^th September, 2004 in Writ Petition Nos. 18114 and 18115 of 2002

passed by the learned Single Judge of the Madras High Court whereby the

learned Single Judge of the High Court allowed the writ petitions and quashed the

order of termination as well as the order of State Level Caste Scrutiny Committee.

The brief facts which are necessary for the disposal of this appeal are

that the petitioner (respondent herein) was working as a Stenographer in the

O.N.G.C. She secured the appointment on the basis of the schedule caste

certificate issued by the Tehsildar dated 3.7.1979. A complaint was received and

the matter was referred by the Corporation-Appellant herein to the

-2-

Tehsildar and the Tehsildar in turn referred it to the District Vigilance Committee

and the District Vigilance Committee after considering the matter came to the

conclusion that the petitioner cannot be considered to be a scheduled caste by

Order dated 19^th July, 2000.

Aggrieved against that order an appeal was preferred by the

incumbent and the Appellate Authority confirmed the order of the District Level

Committee dated 29.4.2002. Consequently, the appellant herein terminated the

services of the respondent by order dated 21.5.2002. Therefore, the respondent

herein was driven to file a writ petition challenging the order dated 25^th May, 2002

as well as the order passed by the District Vigilance Committee and by the State

Level Committee cancelling the certificate. The learned Single Judge, after

considering the Government's Order G.O.Ms. No.477 dated 27.6.1975 whereby

the Government has laid down that in case of a marriage of scheduled caste to a

non scheduled caste, their wards can chose the caste of either of the parents.

In the present case, the petitioner (respondent herein) when she was

admitted in the school, adopted the caste of her father viz. Hindu Gowda but at

the time when she applied for service, she wanted to adopt the caste of

-3-

her mother i.e. Hindu Adi Dravida which is a scheduled caste community and on

that basis she secured the appointment. But after the complaint was received and

the matter was referred to the District Vigilance Committee as well as to the State

Level Committee whereby they cancelled the certificate obtained by the incumbent

and her services were terminated. Learned Single Judge after referring to the

aforesaid circular has held that the petitioner has right to adopt her mother's caste

and she has rightly secured the appointment and consequently, set aside the

termination order of the petitioner. Hence the appellant is in appeal against the

aforesaid order passed by the learned Single Judge dated 27^th September, 2004.

We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the

record.

Learned counsel for the appellant has invited our attention to the

decision of this Court in the case of Anjan Kumar versus Union of India & Ors.

reported in 2006 (3) SCC 257 and read out the observation with regard to a

similar circular issued by the Government of India dated 4.3.1975 which was

almost pari materia with this. Learned Counsel for the respondent submitted that

this is a matter

which has to be examined by the competent authority but in the present case

learned counsel pointed out that the

-4-

order passed by the District Vigilance Committee was bad. As per the circular the

Vigilance Committee has to be constituted by three members but in the present

case, the vigilance committee was constituted of two persons only and this has

been affirmed by the State Level Committee. Learned counsel submitted that this

goes to the root of the matter that the committee was not properly constituted.

T