CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR FCI AND ORS. v. JAGDISH BALARAM BAHIRA AND ORS.

The appellant was appointed as a Junior Lecturer in the fourth respondent High School on a post reserved for the Scheduled Tribes on 2 July 1991 on the basis of a caste certificate dated 23 July 1984 stating that she belongs to the Halba Schedule Tribe. On 14 March 1997 the D appellant's appointment as a Junior Lecturer was confirmed by the fourth respondent. The Scrutiny Committee invalidated the caste claim of the appellant by its order dated 8 Novem9cr 2012. The High Court by its impugned judgment and order dated 5 April 2013 has declined to grant protection of services. The appellant preferred a review which was dismissed by the High Court by its order dated 10 May 2013. For the E· reasons contained in the body of the judgment and having due regard to the invalidation of the claim of the respondent by the Scrutiny Committee, we find no error in the judgment of the High Court. The Civil Appeals arc accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. F 10 Ravindra Govindrao NagpurkarVs. Sccrctarv, Rajasthan Education Society \Vashim & Ors." : The appellant was appointed as a Lecturer on a post reserved for the Scheduled Tribes on .14 August 1995 on the basis of a caste certificate G dated 13 May 1982 stating that he belongs to the Halba Scheduled Tribe. The caste claim of the appellant was invalidated by the Scrutiny Committee by its order dated 18 January 2005. Thereafter the appellant

"(CivilAppcal Nos. 9158-59 of2015) "(Civil Appeal Nos.8604-05/17@ SLP (C) Nos. 33864-65 of 2015) H

354 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] l l S.C.R.

A was issued a show cause notice dated 3 January 2006 by the first respondent to explain why his services should not be terminated. On 16 January 2006 the appellant filed a writ petition and challenged the show cause notice. However. on the same day the first respondent had already issued an order of termination. Thereafter the High Court granted permission to withdraw the writ petition and liberty was granted to tile B proceedings before the appropriate forum. The appellant preferred an appeal before the University & College Tribunal. Nagpur which was dismissed by the tribwrnl by its order dated 30 December 2012. The High Court by its impugned judgment and order dated 18.3.2013 has declined to grant protection of services. The Review Petition was also c dismissed on 29 November 2013. For the reasons contained in the body of the judgment and having due regard to the invalidation of the claim of the respondent by the Scrutiny Committee, we find no error in the judgment of the High Court. The Civil Appeals are accordingly dismissed. D There shall be no order as to costs. 11 Shri Shivaji Education Society & Anr. Vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors.": The third respondent was appointed as an Assistant Tcachc.r on a E post reserved for the Scheduled Tribes on the basis of a caste certificate showing him as belonging to the Thakur Scheduled Tribe. By its order dated 23 April 2008 the Scrutiny Committee invalidated the tribe claim and confiscated his certificate. The services of the third respondent were terminated on 12 May 2008. While dismissing the writ petition challenging the order of the Scrutiny Committee the High Court by its order dated F 15 December 2015 has none the less directed reinstatement of the third respondent subject to an undertaking that he would not claim the benefit of belonging to the Scheduled Tribe in future. Once the tribe claim of the respondent has been held to be false, the judgment of the High Court is unsustainable for the reasons indicated in the body of this judgment. The G Civil Appeal is accordingly allowed and the judgment and order of the High Court dated 15 December 2015 is set aside. In consequence the Writ Petition filed by the third respondent shall stand dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.

"(Civil Appeal No.8601117@ SLP (C) No. 289 of 2016) H

CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR FCI v. JAGDISH 355

BALARAM BAHIRA [DR. D. Y. CHANDRACHUD, J.]

12 Hindustan Aeronautics Limited Vs. Murlidhar Arjun A Ncwarc and Anr.": The respondent was appointed on the post of Assistant Engineer (Grade-I) reserved for the Scheduled Tribes on 11 March 1992 on the strength ofa caste ce1tificatc stating that he belongs to the Gondgowari tribe. The Scrutiny Committee initially by an order dated 23 June 2004 B rejected the tribe claim. Subsequently in pursuance of order of remand passed by the High Cmut, the Scrutiny Committee investigated into the matter again and invalidated the tribe claim by its order dated 2 January 2006 and ordered the tribe certificate to be cancelled. The High Court dismissed the Writ Petition filed by the respondent on 10 November 2006 and the review petition was also dismissed for want of prosecution c on 5 April 2006. However, subsequently the review petition, after restoration, was allowed on 30 January 2015 and while the cancellation of the caste certificate was upheld protection to the services of the respondent was granted. For the reasons contained in the body of the judgment and having D due regard to the fact that the claim of the respondent has been found to be false, we find merit in the appeals which have been filed by the appellant. The impugned judgments of the High Court dated 30 January 2015 arc accordingly set aside. The writ proceedings filed by the respondent shall, in the circun1stances, stand dismissed. The Civil Appeals E arc allowed in these terms. No other submission is nrgcd. There shall be no order as to costs. 13 India Trade Promotion Organisation Vs. Vivckkumar Lajjashankar Chaurasiya": The Scrutiny Committee by its order dated 30 March 2013 has found that the respondent docs not belong to the Nagawanshi tribe. The respondent was appointed on a post reserved for the Scheduled Tribes on the strength of a certificate that he belongs to the Nagawanshi tribe. The Division Bench of the High Court, placing reliance on the judgment of the Full Bench in Arnn Sononc's case (supra), has by its judgment dated 16 February 2015 granted reinstatement to the respondent. For the reasons contained in the body of the judgment, the appeal filed by the employer shall have to be allowed and is accordingly allowed. "(C.A. Nos. 8602-03/17@SLP (CJ Nos.529-30 of2016) ,., (C.A.No.8607117@ SLP @No.14830 of 2015) H

356 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 11 S.C.R.

A The impugned judgment of the High Coundated 16 February 2015 is set aside. No other submission is urged. There shall be no order as to costs. 14 Mumbai Metropolitan Region Development Authority Vs. Rajendra Ramchandra Dhakate & ..\nr.'' : B The claim of the respondent to belong to the Halba Scheduled Tribe has been invalidated by the Scrutiny Committee by its order dated 30 July 1998. The Scrutiny Committee has found that the documents submitted by the first respondent were manipulated and fabricated. The respondent was appointed to a post reserved for the Scheduled Tribes c on the basis of a caste ce11ificatc stating that he belongs to the Halba Scheduled Tribe. The termination of the services the respondent has followed upon the cancellation of the caste certificate. In the circumstances and for the reasons contained in the body of the judgment. the High Cowt erred in allowing the writ petition filed by D the respondent and directing the appellant to reinstate him. The Civil Appeal is accordingly allowed by setting aside the impugned judgment and order of the High Court dated 20 January 2015. The writ petition filed by the respondent shall. in the circumstances. stand dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. E 15 State of Maharashtra Vs.Vasant, s/o.Gyundco Gonnade"': The respondent was appointed on the post ofJw1ior Engineer on 2 I July 1982 on the basis of a claim of belonging to the "'Halba Koshti'" Scheduled Tribe. The Scrutiny Committee invalidated his claim on 19 August 1985. In the meantime. the Maharashtra Public Service F Commission recommended the respondent for appointment in the cadre ofAssistant Engineer in 1984 and 1986 but he was not granted placement. The respondent filed a writ petition to challenge the order of the Scrutiny Committee dated 19 August I 985 which was dismissed by the High Court on 4 July 1986. Thereafter the respondent filed an appeal (Caste G Appeal) 11/ 1986-87 before the Divisional Commissioner. Nagpur against the order of the Scrutiny Committee. The appeal was disposed of on 23 August 1985 by remanding the proceedings back to the Scrutiny Committee. On remand, the Scrutiny Committee, by its order dated 28 ''(Civil Appeal 8609;17@ SLP (CJ No.13409 of 2015) "!Civil Appeal 8606/l 7@ S.L.P.(C)No. 19992 of 2015) H

CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR FCI v. JAGDISH 357

BALARAM BAHIRA [DR. D. Y. CHANDRACHUD, J.]

August 1989 found that the respondent docs not belong to the Scheduled A Tribe and cancelled his caste certi fie ate. The respondent filed an appeal before the Additional Divisional Commissioner. Nagpur which was dismissed on 12 November 1990. The respondent filed a writ petition challenging the invalidation of his caste claim and to seek relief in respect of his service conditions. By an order dated 23 March 1995 the writ B petition was allowed by holding that the respondent belongs to the Halba Koshti caste but that was made subject to the decision in Milind (supra). The respondent was granted placement in the seniority ofAssistant Engineer with effect from 29 July 1987. subject to the final outcome of the proceedings in Milind (supra). On 18 October 1995 the respondent was appointed as Assistant Executive Engineer subject to the decision c in Milind (supra) and he joined on 4 December 1995. On 4 October l 999 the respondent was promoted to the post of Executive Engineer subject to the final disposal of the proceedings before this Court in Milind (supra). It was directed that the seniority would be fixed after the final decision of this Court. On 15 September 2000 the respondent was given D a deemed date of 29 May 1987. On 15 April 2005, considering the judgment of this Court in Milind (supra), the appointment of the rcspomlent to the post of Assistant Executive Engineer was protected and he was regularized on the post considering it as an open category post. His seniority was directed to be fixed from the date of appointment and it was ordered that he shall not get the benefit of belonging to a E Scheduled Tribe. On 6 August 2005 the earlier deemed date of29 May 1987 was modified and his seniority on the post of Assistant Executive Engineer was fixed from 4 December 1995. On 5 June 2006 a G.R. was issued by which the deemed date was modified to 29 May 1987 on the post ofAssistant Executive Engineer for the purpose of seniority. On I F August 2009 a GR. was issued by which the deemed date for the purpose of seniority on the post of Executive Engineer was set as 29 May 199 l subject to approval of the M.P.S.C. On 28 April 2014 the State Government published a seniority list from I January 2011 to 13 December 2013 for Executive Engineer. G The respondent who was aggrieved by the GR. dated 28 April 2014 filed a writ petition before the High Court at its Nagpur Bench praying for an appropriate writ for the declaration of the date of his seniority. The High Court by its judgment dated 27 Febrnary 2015 has

358 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] I l S.C.R.

A adverted to the decision in A run Son one and has come to the conclusion that the G.R. dated 6 August 2005 is not sustainable and the state government has been directed to give effect to its G.R.s dated 15 September 2000 and 15 April 2005 by placing the respondent in the cadre of Assistant Engineer with effect from 29 May 1987. B From a re11ding of the judgment of the High Court, it is clear that the primary consideration which weighed with it was the decision of its Full Bench in A run Sononc. In view of the reasons contained in the body of this judgment, this basis of the impugned decision of the High Court is erroneous. The Respondent does not belong to the Halba Schcdukd Tribe. It is also clear that the benefits obtained by the c Respondent were subject to the decision in Milind. In Milind, this Com1 has held that Halba - Koshti is not a Scheduled Tribe. the relevant entry in the Scheduled Tribes Order 1950 being 'Halba. Halbi'. We accordingly allow the Civil Appeal and set aside the impugned judgment dated 27 February 2015. D There shall be no order as to costs. 16 State of Maharashtra Vs.Ku.Yijaya Dcorao Nandanwar & Anr. 57 : The claim of the respondent of belonging to the Halba Scheduled Tribe has been invalidated by the Scrutiny Committee by its order dated E 7 November 2009. The respondent was appointed as an Assistant Teacher on a post reserved for the Scheduled Tribes. Following the invalidation of the claim, the services of the respondent were terminated. The High Court by its impugned order dated 5 July 2013 set aside the order of termination and granted protection to the service of the respondent. F For the reasons contained in the body of the judgment, the impugned order of the High Court is unsustainable and is accordingly set aside. The writ petition filed by the respondent shall, in the circumstances, stand dismissed. The Civil Appeal is allowed in these terms. No other submission lrns been urged. G There shall be no order as to costs. I 7 Ishwar Shrawan Nikharc Vs.State of Maharashtra & Ors." : "(C. A. No.9107 of2015) "(Civil Appeal No.7187 of2013) H

CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR FCI v. JAGDISH 359

BALARAM BAHIRA [DR. D. Y. CHANDRACHUD, J.]

The appellant wits appointed as an Assistant Teacher in a vacancy A reserved for the Scheduled Tribes on 30 January 1999. The Caste Scrutiny Committee invalidated the claim of the appellant on l July 2008. The Division Bench of the High Court, by its order dated 30 January 2009 allowed the request for the withdrawal of the writ petition filed by the appellant keeping open the validity of the observations made by the B Scrutiny Committee whereby prosecution was ordered. The services of the appellant were terminated on 8 February 2009. The appellant filed an appeal before the School Tribunal which was dismissed on 19 October 2011 on the ground that the appointment of the appellant was not a valid appointment in the eye of law. The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition challenging the order of the Tribunal.A Letters Patent Appeal C has been dismissed by the Division Bench by its judgment dated 7 May

2012. Having regard to the fact that the claim of the appellant to belong to a Scheduled Tribe was invalidated by the Scrutiny Committee, the School Tribunal cannot be faulted in declining to entertain the appeal against the consequential order of termination of service. Moreover, for D the reasons contained in the body of the present judgment, we find no merit in the Civil Appeal. The Civil Appeal is accordingly dismissed. No other submission has been urged. There shall be no order as to costs. 18 Eknath Barikrao Dhanwadc Vs.Divisional Controller, E State Transport Corporation & Anr.59 : The appellant was appointed as a driver in 1999 with the respondent on a post reserved for Scheduled Tribes on the basis of a caste ce11ificate that he belongs to the Mahadeo Koli tribe. The appellant's caste claim was rejected by the Scrutiny Committee holding that the appellant docs not belong to the said tribe. A writ petition was filed by the appellant. The High Court by an order dated II January 2000 remanded the matter to the Scrutiny Committee. On 2 March 200 I the Scrutiny Committee invalidated the tribe chiim of the appellant. The appellant filed a Writ Petition before the High Court. By an order dated 30 June 20.14, the High Court dismissed the petition. The appellant filed another writ petition which was dismissed with costs by an order dated 19 September 2014. Subsequently on 19 November 2014 the first respondent terminated the service of the appellant. Being aggrieved, the

;, (Civil Appeal 8608/17@ SLP (C) ... CC No. 10889 of 2015) H

360 SUPREME COURT REPORTS L2017111 S.C.R.

A appellant filed another writ petition which was dismissed by the High Court by its order l 9 January 20 15. The above narration indicates a complete abuse of process by the appellant. For the reasons contained in the body of the present judgment and in view of the above, we find no merit in the appeal. The Civil B Appeal is accordingly dismissed. No other submission is separately urged. There shall be no order as to costs. J9 Pradip Gajanan Koli Vs.State or Maharashtra & Ors."': The appellant was appointed to the post offireman in the reserved category for the Scheduled Tribes on 12 March l 996. Thereafter a caste c certificate dated 22 June 2000 certifying that the appellant belongs to the Mahadeo Koli Scheduled Tribe was issued. The caste certificate was referred to the Scrutiny Committee for verification. The appellant submitted an affidavit slating that he belongs to the said caste and also appeared before the Committee. By an order dated 7 July 2012 the Scrutiny Committee invalidated the caste certificate of the appellant. D The appellant filed a writ petition which was disposed of by the High Court, by its judgment and order dated 20 November 2013 with a direction that in case the appellant is still in service as on that date. his employment shall not be terminated for a period of three months from the date of its order. E For the reasons contained in the body of the present judgment, we find no error in the impugned judgment. The Civil Appeal is accordingly dismissed. No other submission is separately urged. There shall be no order as lo costs. 20 Union or India & Ors. Vs.Suryakant & Ors.• 1 :

'"(Civil Appeal No.8598/17@ SLP (C) 18925 of2014) H "'(Civil Appeal No.8597/17@ SLP (CJ No. 16852 of 2016)

CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR FCI v. JAGDISH 361

BALARAM BAHIRA [DR. D. Y. CHANDRACHUD. J.]

year 1985 was not traceable and hence it cannot be stated whether A certificate was issued by office or otherwise. Instead of submitting his original caste certificate the respondent produced a fresh tribe certificate dated 21 July 2005 issued by S.D.O., Bhusawal wherein it was stated that he belongs to the Mahadeo Koli tribe. By an order dated I 0 October 2011 the Scrutiny Committee invalidated the caste claim of the respondent. B The respondent filed a writ petition before the High Court. The High Court by its impugned judgment and order dated 20 October 2015 allowed the writ petition, relying upon its Full Bench judgment in Arnn Sononc (supra) with a direction that the respondent is entitled to claim service protection and shall not be entitled to claim promotion in employment. The narration of facts reveals a complete misuse of process by c the Respondent. For the reasons contained in the body of the judgment, the impugned order of the High Court is unsustainable and is accordingly set aside. The Civil Appeal is accordingly allowed in these terms. No separate submission is urged. There shall be no order as to costs. D 21 Executive Director (Lubes), lndiun Oil Corporation Ltd. Vs. Ashok Mahadcorao Pathrabc & Ors. 62 : The respondent joined IOCL in 1976 at i;, R & D Centre, Faridabad. At the time of the appointment, the respondent has shown himself as belonging to the Halba Scheduled Tribe. The appointment was subject to the information submitted by the re~pondent being true and correct. The respondent submitted his caste certificate along with a prescribed form/documents on 15 December 2006 which were forwarded for verification. The Scrutiny Committee rejected the caste claim of the respondent on 4 October 2010. Being aggrieved, the respondent preferred an internal appeal and also a writ petition before the High Court. By its order dated I March 2011 the appellant rejected the appeal of the respondent upholding the dismissal order. Subsequently on 7 December 20 I J the High Court also dismissed the petition of the respondent upholding the dismissal order. Being aggrieved, the respondent filed a Special Leave Petition before this Cmu1 which was dismissed by an order dated 27 G Febmary 2012. The appellant filed another writ petition before the High Cou11 which was allowed by an order dated 24 November 2015 to the extent that the services of the respondent were protected ti II his superannuation. "(Civil Appeal Nos.8599-8600/17@ SLP (C) Nos. 29388-89 of 2016) H

362 SUPREME COURT REPORTS l2017] l l S.C.R.

A The facts narrated above reveal a complete misuse of process by the Respondent. For the reasons contained in the body of the judgment, the impugned orders of the High Court arc unsustainable and arc accordingly set aside. The Civil Appeals are accordingly allowed in these terms. No other ~ubmission is urged. B There sha II be no order as to costs. 22 The State of Maharashtra & Ors. Vs. Rupcsh s/o. Tcksingh Shindc'" : The respondent was appointed as a clerk on a post earmarked for the Vimukta Jatis on 26 March 1999 claiming that he belongs to the c Raj put Bhamta Vimukta Jati. The caste claim of the respondent was referred to the Scrutiny Committee for verification and was invalidated by an order dated 29 July 2011. As the caste claim was invalidated the respondent was terminated from service by an order dated 16 August

2011. Being aggrieved, the respondent filed a writ petition before the D High Court. After hearing both the parties, the court remanded the matter back to the Scrutiny Committee. The caste certificate was again invalidated by an order dated 21 January 2014 and the Committee observed that the respondent obtained a false caste certificate and directed the registration of an FIR against the respondent, pursuant to which the services of the respondent were terminated. Being aggrieved E the respondent filed a writ petition before the High Court. The High Cmu"t by its impugned judgment and order dated 3 February 2016 allowed the writ petition relying upon its Full Bench judgment in the case of Arun Sononc Vs. State or Maharashtra (supra) with a direction to the appellant to reinstate the respondent on his original post. F The facts narrated above indicate the manner in which the process has been abused by the Respondent. For the reasons contained in the body of the judgment, the impugned order of the High Court is unsustainable and is accordingly set aside. The Civil Appeal is accordingly al lowed in these terms. No other submission is urged. G There shall be no order as to costs.

Nidhi Jain Appeals disposed uf.

"'(Civil Appeal Nos.8610/17 (ii/ SLP (C) No.2299 of 2017)