Delve into a case where the court delves deeply into the legal analysis surrounding the misrepresentation of caste certificates in employment. The court’s in-depth examination of the law and its application sets a precedent for similar cases in the future.
Facts
- Respondent no.1 obtained a Caste Certificate as a ‘Halba’ Scheduled Tribe in 1987.
- He joined service in 1995 at the Bhilai Steel Plant against a Schedule Tribe quota vacancy.
- The Division Bench of the High Court granted relief to the writ petitioner based on the State of Maharashtra Vs. Milind case.
- The High Court did not consider that the writ petitioner chose to abstain from the proceedings of the High-Level Caste Scrutiny Committee.
- Respondent no.1’s Halba ST Certificate dated 11.09.1987 was cancelled as he was found to belong to Halba/Koshti community categorized as OBC in Chhattisgarh.
- Due to the caste scrutiny report, respondent no.1 was not eligible for benefits reserved for Halba ST community as an OBC.
- Bhillai Steel Plant ordered the forfeiture of all service benefits of respondent no.1.
- Respondent no.1 filed a writ petition in the High Court of Chhattisgarh challenging the CAT’s decision and seeking service protection.
- The Vigilance Department of Chhattisgarh issued communication to Bhillai Steel Plant for necessary action post cancellation of the ST Certificate.
- On 24.10.2015, respondent no.1’s service termination order was issued following the adverse finding of the Committee.
- Halba/Koshti is stated to be not a sub-caste of Halba.
Also Read: Legal Analysis of Assignment and Ratification in Property Law
Arguments
- The appellant’s counsel argues that the Milind judgment only applies to doctor litigants for the larger interest of society and should not be applied indiscriminately.
- The judgment in Milind was clarified in Dattatray, stating that it does not support retaining individuals who obtained jobs in reserved categories with false caste certificates.
- The High-Power Caste Scrutiny Committee found that respondent no.1 did not belong to the Halba ST community due to lack of pre-1950 documents.
- The High Court erred in granting relief to respondent no.1 as he did not challenge the circular or the adverse conclusion of the Caste Scrutiny Committee.
- The Senior Counsel argues that the High Court incorrectly relied on the Milind judgment and failed to recognize its restricted applicability to the concerned litigant only.
- The respondent no.1’s appointment predates the Milind judgment, entitling him to retain his job despite the adverse finding of the Caste Scrutiny Committee.
- The respondent no.1 failed to establish the validity of his caste certificate before the Caste Scrutiny Committee despite being given the opportunity.
- A government circular protected employment of Halba/Koshti community members, supporting the High Court’s decision to grant relief to respondent no.1.
- The cancellation of a government circular in 2016, based on the Dattatray clarification of the Milind judgment, means relief should not have been granted to respondent no.1.
- Consequential action was deemed appropriate following the cancellation of the earlier circular in view of the respondent’s lack of ST category eligibility.
- Respondent nos. 2 and 3, representing the State of Chhattisgarh, argue that respondent no.1 is ineligible to continue in service as he acquired employment earmarked for the ST category despite not belonging to that category.
- They claim that respondent no.1 utilized a false caste certificate to secure the position, which disqualifies him from any relief as per the ruling in ‘Chairman and Managing Director, Food Corporation of India & Ors. vs. Jagdish Balaram Bahira & Ors.’
- The stand of the State of Chhattisgarh is based on the principle that individuals who obtain employment through misrepresentation of their caste status should not be entitled to retain their positions meant for reserved categories.
Also Read: Interpretation of Custody in Contempt of Court Case
Analysis
- The High Court erroneously relied on the Milind case in granting relief to respondent no.1.
- The appointment of respondent no.1 as Management Trainee (Technical) cannot be compared to the education and appointment of a medical doctor as clarified in Dattatray case.
- Respondent no.1 is not entitled to claim any right to continue in a post earmarked for the ST category.
- The Halba ST certificate of respondent no.1 was cancelled by the Caste Scrutiny Committee.
- The High Court disregarded the government’s circular cancelling the previous circular and clarifying the judgment in Dattatray case.
- Actions were expected to be taken against those who secured unmerited appointments with false caste certificates.
- The clarification in Dattatray (supra) stated that the ratio in Milind does not apply to cases involving false claims for reservation in employment.
- A person who secures employment by falsely claiming caste/tribe deprives a legitimate candidate of their rightful opportunity.
- The Chhattisgarh High Court in a common judgment highlighted that the protection under Milind can only be given to those who were actually ‘Halba-Koshti’ or ‘Koshti’ before 28.11.2000 in the states of Madhya Pradesh and Chhattisgarh.
- The notification dated 11.1.2016 was deemed not illegal, but it must be interpreted within the framework of the law laid down by the Apex Court in various judgments as explained above.
- The High Court should not have granted equitable relief to Respondent no. 1
- Respondent no. 1 should not continue to usurp benefits meant for ST category
- The Division Bench should have declared ‘the game is up’ for Respondent no. 1
- Respondent no. 1, being an OBC, cannot be retained in an ST category post
Also Read: Judicial Interpretation on Tribunal Powers and Back Wages
Decision
- The appeal is allowed with parties to bear their own costs
- Emoluments paid to respondent no. 1 should not be recovered
- Respondent no. 1 is disentitled to any pensionary benefit due to wrongful appointment
Case Title: THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER BHILAI STEEL PLANT BHILAI Vs. MAHESH KUMAR GONNADE (2022 INSC 675)
Case Number: C.A. No.-004990-004990 / 2021
