THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, BHILAI STEEL PLANT, BHILAI versus MAHESH KUMAR GONNADE & ORS. on 11 July 2022

1. Heard Mr. Maninder Singh, the learned Senior Counselappearing on behalf of the appellant. Also heard Mr. Anupam Lal Das,Bthe learned Senior Counsel representing the respondent no. 1. The Stateof Chhattisgarh is represented by Mr. Sumir Sodhi, the learned counsel.

2. The challenge in this appeal is to the judgment and order dated09.01.2017 in the WP No. 675/2016 whereby the Division Bench hasinterfered with the order passed by the Central Administrative TribunalC(for short “CAT”) and granted relief to the writ petitioner (respondentno. 1) whose termination order dated 24.10.2015 was set aside with thedeclaration that he would be entitled to all the consequential benefits,including seniority and back wages.

RELEVANT FACTS

D

3. On 11.09.1987, the respondent no.1 obtained a Caste Certificateshowing him to be “Halba” Scheduled Tribe (hereinafter “ST”) fromthe Deputy Collector, Durg and on the basis of the said certificate, therespondent no.1 on 18.09.1995, joined service as a Management Trainee(Technical) against a Schedule Tribe quota vacancy at the Bhillai SteelEPlant of the Steel Authority of India Limited (SAIL). In 2008, questionswere raised on the caste status of the respondent no.1, and his entitlementto the benefits meant for the Scheduled Tribe category, and accordingly,his caste certificate was forwarded to the High-Level Caste ScrutinyCommittee, Raipur to determine whether he belonged to Halba ScheduledTribe community or “Halba/Koshti” the Other Backward ClassF(hereinafter “OBC”) community. The Committee, after due inquiry, on15.07.2015 submitted a report stating that respondent no.1 belongs toHalba/Koshti community, which is categorized as OBC in the State ofChhattisgarh, and thus, he does not belong to Halba Scheduled Tribecommunity. Accordingly, the respondent no.1’s Halba ST CertificateGdated 11.09.1987 was cancelled with the observation that the respondentno.1 failed to produce documents prior to the year 1950 showing him asHalba. Following the cancellation of the ST Certificate, the VigilanceDepartment of the State of Chhattisgarh, on 23.07.2015, issuedcommunication to the employer i.e., Bhillai Steel Plant for necessaryaction. In consequence thereof, and the adverse finding of the Committee,Horder for termination of the respondent no.1’s service was issued on

24.10.2015. The Bhillai Steel Plant also ordered for forfeiture of all theservice benefits of the respondent no.1 such as CPF, Gratuity, Pension,Leave Encashment etc.

4. The respondent no.1 moved the Central Administrative Tribunal(CAT), to challenge the termination but his OA 1115/2015 came to bedismissed in limine because he had not challenged the adverse finding(15.07.2015) of the High-Level Caste Scrutiny Committee, Raipur.

5. Thereafter, the respondent no.1 filed a writ petition before theHigh Court of Chhattisgarh challenging the CAT’s decision and seekingprotection of his service. The Division Bench of the High Court by placingreliance on State of Maharashtra Vs. Milind and Ors.[1](hereinafter“Milind”) through the impugned judgment granted relief to the writpetitioner. In the process, the High Court overlooked that the writpetitioner opted to abstain from the proceedings of the High-Level CasteScrutiny Committee. Moreover, by this time it was made clear thatHalba/Koshti is not a sub-caste of Halba. Therefore, the respondentno.1 being an OBC (Halba/Koshti) could not have claimed recognitionand employment benefits reserved for members of the Halba STcommunity under the Milind’s ratio.

ARGUMENTS BY THE COUNSELS

ARGUMENTS BY THE COUNSELS

6.1 Assailing the impugned judgment, Mr. Maninder Singh, thelearned Senior Counsel firstly argues that the High Court erroneouslyrelied on the ratio in Milind (supra) and also conspicuously missed thepoint that the relief in the cited case was restricted to the concernedlitigant and the ratio was not intended to be of universal application.Placing strong reliance on Union of India vs. Dattatray & Ors.[2](hereinafter “Dattatray”), the appellant’s counsel then argues that theMilind’s judgment was made applicable only for the doctor litigant in thelarger interest of the society and the ratio thereof, cannot beindiscriminately applied in cases of persons who undeservingly securepublic appointments to reserved category jobs.

6.2 It is the submission of the Senior Counsel for the appellantthat the judgment in Milind (supra) was clarified by this Court inDattatray (supra) that Milind does not propound retention of any personin service who secured employment in a ST category vacancy, on the 1 (2001) 1 SCC 4

2 (2008) 4 SCC 612

AB

C

D

EF

G

H

Abasis of a false caste certificate. For this reason, the earlier GovernmentCircular dated 1.10.2011 (which on account of Milind’s judgment grantedprotection to the pre 28.11.2000 appointees recruited wrongly under theST category), was cancelled by the latter circular dated 11.1.2016 issuedby the Secretary, GAD, Chhattisgarh with the specific observation thatthe judgment in Milind was clarified by this Court in Dattatray. Mr.BManinder Singh, therefore, argues that consequential action was rightlytaken in view of the cancellation of earlier circular (1.10.2011).

6.3 The High Court according to the appellant, erroneously grantedrelief to the respondent no.1 as he neither challenged the circular dated11.1.2016 nor the adverse conclusion of the Caste Scrutiny Committee.CTherefore, in view of the undisturbed finding that he does not belong tothe ST category and the unchallenged Circular (11.1.2016), relief couldnot have been granted by the High Court. Furthermore, the respondentno.1 never tried to establish the validity of his caste certificate beforethe High-Power Caste Scrutiny Committee, although, opportunity wasDafforded to him through a notice, to project his version.

7.1 Per contra, Mr. Anupam Lal Das, the learned Senior Counselwould contend that the respondent no.1 had obtained his caste certificateon 11.09.1987 and joined service as far back as on 18.09.1995 and assuch, his service could not have been terminated without issuing him aEshow cause notice.

7.2 Adverting next to the adverse finding as given by the High-Power Caste Scrutiny Committee to the effect that the respondent no.1does not belong to the Halba ST community, Mr. Das would argue thatthe adverse conclusion was drawn mainly because the respondent no.1Ffailed to produce any pre 1950 document, showing his caste as Halba.But since the respondent no.1’s appointment became final prior to28.11.2000 i.e., the date on which this Court decided the C.A. No.2294/1986 (State of Maharashtra vs. Milind), the appointed person evenwith the adverse finding of the Caste Scrutiny Committee against him, isentitled to retain his job. Furthermore, the Central Government vide itsGcircular dated 10.8.2010 had ordered for protection of employment ofthose belonging to the Halba/Koshti community. Thus, according to thelearned Senior Counsel, the High Court, rightly granted relief to therespondent no.1 in his Writ Petition and the same should not be disturbedin this appeal.

8. The stand of the State of Chhattisgarh (respondent nos.2 and3) as pleaded in their counter affidavit is that respondent no.1 (not beinga ST category person) is disentitled to continue in service, as he securedemployment to a post earmarked for the ST category. Moreover, sincethe respondent no.1 does not belong to the reserved category and securedemployment on the basis of a false caste certificate, he was disentitledto any relief in view of the law laid down in Chairman and ManagingDirector, Food Corporation of India & Ors. vs. Jagdish BalaramBahira & Ors.[3] (hereinafter “Jagdish”).

THE DISCUSSION AND THE DECISION

9. At the outset, given that the Jagdish (supra) as relied on byrespondent nos.2 & 3 was pronounced on 06.07.2017, almost 6 monthsafter the impugned judgment on 09.01.2017, the same could not havebeen considered by the High Court. With this prefatory clarification, theissue to be answered in this matter is whether the High Court had correctlyrelied on the ratio in Milind (supra) in granting relief to the writ petitioner(respondent no.1), and whether the impugned decision of the High Courtis sustainable in view of the clarification of the Milind by the subsequentjudgment in Dattatray (supra).

10. As can be seen, the High Court granted relief to the respondentno.1 by referring to the decision in Milind (supra) with the followingwords: - “15. For the aforesaid, we are of the considered view that theimpugned judgment rendered by the Central AdministrativeTribunal, refusing to extend benefit of Milind’s judgment tothe petitioners deserves to be and is hereby set-aside.Consequently, the petitioner’s termination vide order dated24.10.2015 is also set-aside. The petitioner would be entitledto all the consequential benefits on or after 24.10.2015including seniority and back wages. However, the petitionershall not be entitled to any interest on the arrears of salarynor any further benefit on the basis of certificate which hasbeen cancelled by the High Power Caste Scrutiny Committee.”

11. While applying the ratio of Milind as above, the High Court,however, failed to take note of the following clarification given in Dattatray(supra), regarding the ratio in Milind: - AB

CD

E

F

G

H

“5. ………But the said decision has no application toa case which does not relate to an admission to an educationalinstitution, but relates to securing employment by wronglyclaiming the benefit of reservation meant for Scheduled Tribes.When a person secures employment by making a false claimregarding caste/tribe, he deprives a legitimate candidatebelonging to Scheduled Caste/Tribe, of employment. In sucha situation, the proper course is to cancel the employmentobtained on the basis of the false certificate so that the postmay be filled up by a candidate who is entitled to the benefitof reservation.”

A

B

C

12. The pronouncement in Dattatray clearly suggests that theHigh Court misapplied the ratio in Milind, since the appointment of therespondent no. 1 as Management Trainee (Technical), cannot becompared to the education and appointment of a medical doctor.

13. It must also be borne in mind that the Division Bench of theDChhattisgarh High Court in the common judgment in Writ Appeal No.531of 2016 (State of Chhattisgarh & Ors. vs. Dinesh Kumar Sonkusre)had made the following observations: - “40. It would be pertinent to mention that the State ofChhattisgarh was formed w.e.f. 01.11.2000 and the judgmentin Milind (supra) was rendered on 28.11.2000 and theprotection can only be given to those who were actually“Halba-Koshti” or “Koshti” for the State of Madhya Pradeshand Chhattisgarh prior to 28.11.2000 and were thereforetreated as “Halbas”.

E

F

41. Having held so, we want to clarify that the notificationdated 11.1.2016 is not bad in law. It will however have to beread in the context of the law laid down by the Apex Court invarious judgements as explained by us above. Thisnotification may not apply to those petitioners who haveobtained jobs prior to 28.11.2000 provided they haveobtained Scheduled Tribe certificate “bona fide” and withoutsuppression or misrepresentation of any facts. In case, aperson is not a “Halba Koshti” in relation to State of MadhyaPradesh, then that person is not entitled to any protection oflaw. If a person has obtained a false certificate by G

H

misrepresentation of facts or providing wrong information,then that the person is also not entitled to any protection. It isonly those who were actually “Halba Koshti” or “Koshti”believed that they were members of “Halba”, a ScheduledTribe and who got jobs prior to 28.11.2000, are entitled tosuch protection. This protection cannot be extended to alland sundry. To give an example if “Halba Koshti” from theState of Maharashtra had shifted to State of Madhya Pradesh,then he would not be “Halba Koshti” belonging to MadhyaPradesh and as such, his certificate would be totally falseand such a person would not be entitled to any protection.”

14. As we notice, the High Court disregarded the Government’scircular dated 11.01.2016 whereby the previous circular (01.10.2011)was cancelled with the specific observation that Milind’s judgment wasclarified subsequently in Dattatray, by declaring that when a personsecures appointment on the basis of a false certificate, he cannot bepermitted to retain the benefit of wrongful appointment. In fact, necessaryactions were expected to be taken against those who secured unmeritedappointment on the basis of false caste certificate. Pertinently, therespondent no.1 could have (but never did) challenge, the circular dated11.01.2016 which required the Government to cancel such unmeritedappointment.

15. As noted earlier, the respondent no.1 secured employment toa post earmarked for the reserved category, and there is a clear findingby the Caste Scrutiny Committee that the respondent no.1 does not belongto the Halba ST category. The Halba ST certificate (11.09.1987) onthe basis of which the respondent No.1 secured employment wascancelled by the Committee on 15.07.2015, and such finding of the CasteScrutiny Committee remain unchallenged till date. As a consequence,the respondent no.1 is disentitled to claim any equitable relief by virtueof his long service, particularly when he, despite the notice, avoided theproceedings of the Caste Scrutiny Committee. Also conspicuously, hedoes not challenge the adverse finding against him. Moreover, it is notthe claim of the Respondent no.1 that he belongs to the ST category nordid he ever challenge the clarificatory circular (11.01.2016) which cancelsthe earlier circular (01.10.2011). In such circumstances, an opportunityto the respondent no.1 would be futile because he could not have claimedthat he belongs to the ST category since his Halba caste certificate AB

C

D

E

F

G

H

A(issued on 11.09.1987) stood cancelled by the Committee. Consequently,as an OBC person, the respondent no.1 could not have been permittedto continue in a post meant for the ST category. The High Court,therefore, should not have granted relief by invoking the principles ofnatural justice, and by adverting to the ratio in Milind (supra) which wasnot applicable to the respondent no.1, and which eventually was clarifiedBin Dattatray (supra).

16. The above would show that the High Court clearly fell into anerror by granting relief to the respondent no.1 who is disentitled to claimany right to continue in a post earmarked for the ST category. The ratioin Milind (supra) was incorrectly applied in the impugned judgment sinceCit is not the case of the respondent no.1 that he belongs to the ST category.According to our understanding of the circumstances, the High Courtinstead of granting equitable relief to the Respondent no. 1, should haveheld that he cannot continue to usurp the benefits meant for a ST categoryperson. Indeed the Division Bench should have said “the game is up”Das was pronounced by Shakespeare in the play Cymbeline when thecharacter stood exposed for what he actually was. Consequently weare of the opinion that the Respondent no. 1 being an OBC cannot beretained in a ST category post. However the emoluments paid to himshould not be recovered. It is further held that the respondent no.1 isdisentitled to any pensionary benefit by virtue of his wrongful appointment.EIt is ordered accordingly. The appeal therefore stands allowed, leavingthe parties to bear their own costs.

F

Nidhi Jain

Appeal allowed.

G

H