2005 (10) TMI 609 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the petitioner's caste claim.
2. Termination of the petitioner's employment.
3. Application of the Supreme Court's judgment in State of Maharashtra v. Milind and Ors.
4. Protection of appointments and admissions that have become final.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of the Petitioner's Caste Claim:
The petitioner claimed to belong to the "Halba" tribe, a Scheduled Tribe, and was appointed as a Junior Clerk against a reserved post. However, the Scheduled Tribe Caste Scrutiny Committee invalidated his claim, determining that he belonged to the "Koshti" caste, not the "Halba" tribe. This decision led to the petitioner's challenge in court.

2. Termination of the Petitioner's Employment:
Following the invalidation of his caste claim, the petitioner was terminated from service on December 12, 2002. The petitioner amended his petition to challenge this termination. The court initially granted a status quo order, but later clarified that since the termination had already occurred, there was no question of reinstatement based on the status quo order.

3. Application of the Supreme Court's Judgment in State of Maharashtra v. Milind and Ors.:
The petitioner argued that his appointment should be protected based on the Supreme Court's judgment in State of Maharashtra v. Milind and Ors., which held that "Halba Koshtis" are not entitled to Scheduled Tribe benefits. However, the Supreme Court had made its judgment prospective, protecting admissions and appointments that had become final before the judgment.

4. Protection of Appointments and Admissions that Have Become Final:
The court considered whether the petitioner's appointment, made in 1997, should be protected under the principle established in the Milind case. The Supreme Court had protected final admissions and appointments, acknowledging the passage of time and the circumstances under which such appointments were made.

The court noted that the Division Bench of the Supreme Court in Sanjay Punekar v. State of Maharashtra had similarly protected appointments made prior to the Milind judgment. Furthermore, the court distinguished the present case from the case of R. Vishwanatha Pillai, where the appointment was obtained through fraud. In contrast, the petitioner's case involved a genuine doubt about the status of "Halba Koshtis" that was only clarified by the Milind judgment in 2000.

Conclusion:
The court concluded that the petitioner's appointment, made before the Milind judgment, should be protected. The court directed the respondent to reinstate the petitioner with continuity in service but without back wages. The petitioner was required to file an undertaking not to claim Scheduled Tribe benefits in the future and to deposit his original caste certificate with the issuing authority.