Service Law: Termination – Challenge to, by Management trainee in PSU-respondent no. 1 who secured employment to a post earmarked for the reserved category when he did not belong to the Halba ST category – Division Bench set aside the termination order holding that he would be entitled to the benefits of seniority and back wages – On appeal held: When a person secures appointment on the basis of a false certificate, he cannot be permitted to retain the benefit of wrongful appointment – As an OBC person, the respondent no.1 could not have been permitted to continue in a post meant for the ST category – High Court should not have granted relief by invoking the principles of natural justice, and by adverting to the ratio in Milind’s case which was not applicable to the respondent no.1, and was eventually clarified in Dattatray’s case – High Court erred by granting relief to the respondent no.1 – However, the emoluments paid to him should not be recovered – Furthermore, respondent no.1 not entitled to any pensionary benefit by virtue of his wrongful appointment.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.1 The pronouncement in Dattatray’s case clearly suggests that the High Court misapplied the ratio in Milind’s case, since the appointment of the respondent no. 1 as Management Trainee (Technical), cannot be compared to the education and appointment of a medical doctor. [Para 12][986-C-D]
1.2 The High Court disregarded the Government’s circular dated 11.01.2016 whereby the previous circular (01.10.2011) was cancelled with the specific observation that Milind’s judgment was clarified subsequently in Dattatray’s case, by declaring that when a person secures appointment on the basis of a false certificate, he cannot be permitted to retain the benefit of wrongful appointment. In fact, necessary actions were expected to be taken against those who secured unmerited appointment on the basis of false caste certificate. Pertinently, the respondent no.1 could have (but never did) challenge, the circular dated 11.01.2016 which required the Government to cancel such unmerited appointment. [Para 14][987-C-E]
1.3 The respondent no.1 secured employment to a post earmarked for the reserved category, and there is a clear finding by the Caste Scrutiny Committee that the respondent no.1 does not belong to the Halba ST category. The Halba ST certificate (11.09.1987) on the basis of which the respondent No.1 secured employment was cancelled by the Committee on 15.07.2015, and such finding of the Caste Scrutiny Committee remain unchallenged till date. As a consequence, the respondent no. 1 is disentitled to claim any equitable relief by virtue of his long service, particularly when he, despite the notice, avoided the proceedings of the Caste Scrutiny Committee. Also conspicuously, he does not challenge the adverse finding against him. Moreover, it is not the claim of the respondent no.1 that he belongs to the ST category nor did he ever challenge the clarificatory circular (11.01.2016) which cancels the earlier circular (01.10.2011). In such circumstances, an opportunity to the respondent no.1 would be futile because he could not have claimed that he belongs to the ST category since his Halba caste certificate (issued on 11.09.1987) stood cancelled by the Committee. Consequently, as an OBC person, the respondent no.1 could not have been permitted to continue in a post meant for the ST category. The High Court, therefore, should not have granted relief by invoking the principles of natural justice, and by adverting to the ratio in Milind’s case which was not applicable to the respondent no.1, and which eventually was clarified in Dattatray’s case. [Para 15][987-E-H; 988-A-B]
1.4 The High Court erred by granting relief to the respondent no.1 who is disentitled to claim any right to continue in a post earmarked for the ST category. The ratio in Milind’s case was incorrectly applied in the impugned judgment since it is not the case of the respondent no.1 that he belongs to the ST category. The High Court instead of granting equitable relief to the respondent no. 1, should have held that he cannot continue to usurp the benefits meant for a ST category person. Consequently, the respondent no. 1 being an OBC cannot be retained in a ST category post. However, the emoluments paid to him should not be recovered. Furthermore, the respondent no.1 is disentitled to any pensionary benefit by virtue of his wrongful appointment. [Para 16][988-B-E]
Union of India v. Dattatray & Ors. (2008) 4 SCC 612 : [2008] 2 SCR 1096 – relied on.
State of Maharashtra v. Milind and Ors. (2001) 1 SCC
4 : [2000] 5 Suppl. SCR 65; Chairman and Managing Director, Food Corporation of India & Ors. v. Jagdish Balaram Bahira & Ors. (2017) 8 SCC 670 : [2017] 11 SCR 271 – referred to.
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.