In support of her plea of belonging to a Scheduled Caste, the first respondent submitted a caste certificate which was issued by the Tehsildar, Bhubaneswar.
Also Read: https://newslaw.in/case-type/criminal/quashing-of-fir-in-a-matrimonial-dispute/
On 3 August 2011, the Sub- Collector directed an enquiry to verify the authenticity of the caste certificate issued to the first respondent. On 16 August 2011, the Tehsildar passed an order cancelling the caste certificate of the first respondent under Rule 8(2) of the Orissa Caste Certificate (for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes) Rules, 1980.
Moreover, the Tehsildar noted that the husband of the first respondent belonged to the “Kaibarta” caste, but the caste certificate of the first respondent showed her as belonging to the “Dewar” caste.
Also Read: https://newslaw.in/supreme-court-upholds-acquittal-of-accused-in-hebbale-property-dispute-case/
By an order dated 23 March 2012, the Collector rejected the appeal of the first respondent and upheld the order of the Tehsildar dated 16 August 2011 cancelling her caste certificate.
By a judgment dated 25 January 2018, a Single Judge upheld the cancellation of the caste certificate of the first respondent but directed the appellant to consider her continuance in the post, inter alia, by relying upon the decisions of this Court in Kavita Solunke v. It has been urged that the Single Judge did not direct the appellant to compulsorily reinstate the first respondent, as was done in Kavita Solunke (supra) and Shalini (supra).
In Valsamma Paul (supra), the appellant belonged to a forward caste but claimed that she had become a member of the reserved community by marriage.
[…] A candidate who had the advantageous start in life being born in Forward Caste and had march of advantageous life but is transplanted in Backward Caste by adoption or marriage or conversion, does not become eligible to the benefit of reservation either under Article 15(4) or 16(4), as the case may be. In Anjan Kumar (supra), the question before this Court was whether a person born from a marriage between a tribal wife and a non-tribal husband could claim the status of Scheduled Tribe. In Shalini (supra), a two Judge Bench of this Court relied on Kavita Solunke (supra) to propound a test of dishonest intention for the grant or denial of protection to persons whose caste claims have been invalidated.
, (2013) 16 SCC 526 : (2014) 3 SCC (L&S) 265] has, with great respect, fallen into error.
Irrespective of whether or not the caste claim of the first respondent was fraudulent or otherwise, it is evident that the benefit which she obtained of securing employment against a reserved post would have to be recalled once the caste claim has been rejected.
In view of the clear principle of law which was has been formulated in the judgment of this Court in Chairman and Managing Director, Food Corporation of India (supra), we are of the view that the Single Judge of the High Court was in error in issuing a 9 direction for reconsideration of the claim of the first respondent for reinstatement.
Case Title: BHUBANESWAR DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Vs. MADHUMITA DAS (2023 INSC 728)
Case Number: C.A. No.-003320-003320 / 2023
