2019 (9) TMI 270 - HC - Indian Laws

False declaration of caste - it is submitted that it was established from the Caste Scrutiny Committee reports that the respondent belonged to the extremely backward community and not to the Scheduled Tribe community and, consequently, had obtained employment in the petitioner Department on the basis of a false declaration of caste - HELD THAT - As on date the caste certificate which was issued to the respondent-applicant in the year 1993 holds good so long as the decree of the Civil Court stands. In this background, we are of the considered opinion that the Tribunal has not committed any error in proceeding to issue a direction to reinstate the respondent-applicant who had already served for ten years when the verification began and he came to be suspended in the year 2010, i.e. almost after 17 years of his service. His dismissal came only in the year 2015. It is this dismissal order which was challenged before the Tribunal and the claim of the respondent-applicant has been allowed taking into consideration the entire facts on record, but mainly basing its finding on the strength of the decree of the Civil Court. We do not find any error in the approach of the Tribunal in doing so, inasmuch as, so long as the decree holds valid, the respondent-applicant was entitled for the relief that was prayed for. Maintainability of petition - claim petition had been instituted without impleading proper and necessary parties, namely, the District Level and the State Level Committees constituted for the purpose of scrutiny of caste - HELD THAT - Inasmuch as it is open to the petitioner Department to pursue its remedy of appeal against the decree of the trial court declaring the status of caste of the respondent is concerned. Petition dismissed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Competency of claim petition without impleading proper parties
2. Error in extending benefit of decree to respondent
3. False declaration of caste for employment
4. Validity of caste certificate and employment based on it
5. Decree of Civil Court regarding caste status
6. Reinstatement of respondent based on decree
7. Challenge to Tribunal's order of reinstatement

Issue 1: Competency of claim petition without impleading proper parties
The first objection raised was the incompetence of the claim petition by the respondent due to the non-inclusion of proper and necessary parties, specifically the District Level and State Level Committees for caste scrutiny. The contention was that the petition was flawed for not involving these essential parties.

Issue 2: Error in extending benefit of decree to respondent
Another objection highlighted an error by the Tribunal in granting the benefit of a decree from the Civil Court to the respondent without considering an appeal against it. The respondent's reliance on the Civil Court decree was challenged, claiming it tainted the impugned order.

Issue 3: False declaration of caste for employment
The matter revolved around the respondent's alleged false declaration of belonging to a Scheduled Tribe community for employment purposes. The dispute centered on whether the respondent's claimed caste was indeed a proclaimed scheduled tribe caste, raising concerns about the authenticity of the caste certificate used for employment.

Issue 4: Validity of caste certificate and employment based on it
The validity of the caste certificate dated 6th July 1993, which formed the basis for the respondent's employment as a Scheduled Tribe member, was questioned. Reports from the Caste Scrutiny Committee were examined to determine the respondent's actual caste status and whether the employment was secured through misrepresentation.

Issue 5: Decree of Civil Court regarding caste status
The judgment of the Civil Court in Title Suit No.697 of 2015 declared the respondent's caste status, leading to subsequent applications for reinstatement. The Court's decree played a pivotal role in the Tribunal's decision to reinstate the respondent based on the validity of the caste certificate issued in 1993.

Issue 6: Reinstatement of respondent based on decree
After the Tribunal's order to reinstate the respondent, the Department challenged this decision through a writ petition, citing the pendency of an appeal against the Civil Court decree. The High Court upheld the Tribunal's decision, emphasizing the validity of the Civil Court decree until overturned through appropriate legal channels.

Issue 7: Challenge to Tribunal's order of reinstatement
The Department contested the Tribunal's order of reinstatement, seeking a stay during the appeal process against the Civil Court decree. The High Court rejected the petition, affirming the Tribunal's decision to reinstate the respondent based on the existing valid decree until legally challenged and overturned.