Dr. Ramkeshwar Singh vs State of Chhattisgarh and Others

Satish K. Agnihotri, J.—Since both the above writ petitions arise from the same cause of action and involve common facts and question of law, thus, they are being considered and decided by this common order. Challenge in Writ Petition (S) No. 6554 of 2007 is to the order dated 24-9-2007 (Annexure P/12) passed by the High Power Caste Scrutiny Committee (for short the ''Committee'') whereby it has been held that the petitioner has obtained Government employment on the basis of false caste certificate and the respondent-authorities have been directed to cancel his appointment on the post of Assistant Surgeon, with immediate effect.

In Writ Petition No. 1538 of 2002, there is no challenge to any specific order but the petitioner prays for commanding the respondent authority by way of appropriate writ/order to initiate enquiry against the respondent No. 7, who has obtained Government employment on the basis of false caste certificate.

Shri Paranjpe, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in W.P. (S) No. 6554/2007, submits that the petitioner is working as Incharge, Block Medical Officer and posted at Primary Health Centre, Kondagaon, Jagdalpur, District Bastar. Initially, he was appointed as Assistant Surgeon under the Other Backward Category (for short ''the OBC), on 18-3-1991 after acquiring the degree of M.B.B.S. from Jiwaji University, Gwalior in the year 1991. Shri Paranjpe further submits that though, the petitioner has secured the admission in M.B.B.S. course as a Scheduled Tribe (for short ''the S.T.'') category. Thereafter, the petitioner participated in the post graduate course wherein some other candidates filed a writ petition claiming that the seat was reserved for ST candidate whereas the petitioner does not belong to the same. The said petition, being Misc. Petition No. 2359/1990, was disposed of by a Division Bench of High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Bench at Gwalior, vide order dated 5-2-1991 (Annexure P/7) observing that the petitioner should not be denied the fruits of education and it was further found that the petitioner does not belong to ST category but in fact, he belonged to OBC category. Later on, the petitioner joined the Government service as an OBC category candidate. However, on 20-4-2007 (Annexure P/9), the petitioner was issued a notice by the Committee with regard to verification of his social status and thereafter, again on 19-7-2007 (Annexure P/11) another notice was issued and the petitioner was directed to appear before the Committee. The petitioner filed his reply and appeared before the authorities also. Vide the impugned orders dated 24-9-2007 (Annexure P/12) and 15-10-2007 (Annexure P/13), the Committee held that since the petitioner has secured MBBS degree on the basis of claiming himself to be a ST category candidate, thus, his appointment may be cancelled. Thus, this petition.

Shri Prashant Jaiswal, learned Senior Advocate appearing with Shri Shailendra Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner in (W.P. No. 1538/2002) submits that since the respondent No. 7 [petitioner in W.P. (S) No. 6554/2007] who originally belongs to Kushwaha caste, has obtained MBBS degree claiming himself to be a of "Gond" caste, under the ST category candidate and further, has obtained Government employment on the basis of that degree, the petitioner made several complaints to the authorities for taking appropriate action, however, the respondent No 7 [petitioner in W.P. (S) No. 6554/2007] is still continuing with the service. Thus, this petition.

This Court, in a batch of matters viz. Dinesh Kumar Bhagoria v. State of Chhattisgarh and others W.P. (S) No. 3338 of 2007, decided on 19th August, 2010 and other connected matters, has considered similar issues with regard to verification of the social status of a candidate.

On perusal of the order dated 24-9-2007 (Annexure P/12 to W.P. (S) No. 6554/2007), it appears that the same is not in accordance with the guidelines issued by the supreme Court in a catena of decisions as referred in Dinesh Kumar Bhagoria (supra), particularly in State of Maharashtra Vs. Milind and Others, and Director of Tribunal Welfare, Government of Andhra Pradesh Vs. Laveti Giri and another,

Indisputably, the petitioner obtained admission to M.B.B.S. course at Jiwaji Medical College, Gwalior claiming himself to be a ST category and has completed the course. It is also evident from the fact that while entering into the Government service, the petitioner has not claimed appointment against the reserved seat for ST candidate. However, he was admitted to Government service against OBC category, on the basis that the petitioner was found by learned Division Bench of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh that he belonged to OBC category. Thus, the finding of the Division Bench of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh cannot be set aside either by this Court or by the Committee.

Be that as it may, the identical question as to what would be the consequences if a candidate has obtained a professional degree on the basis of wrong certificate of being a member of SC/ST/OBC category came into consideration before the Supreme Court in R. Vishwanatha Pillai Vs. State of Kerala and Others, The Supreme Court further considered the ratio laid down in Milind (supra) in the matter of Yogesh Ramchandra Naikwadi Vs. The State of Maharashtra and Others, and held as under:

We may therefore examine the facts of this case to decide whether the appellant should be given any benefit and if so whether they should be similar to relief granted in Milind and Vishwanatha Pillai. As the caste claim of the appellant had been rejected by the Scrutiny Committee even before admission, this case stands on a different footing. But in this case though the scrutiny committee had rejected the appellant''s claim even prior to his admission to the professional course, the High Court, by order dated 22-6-1995 had directed the Director of Technical Education to accept the admission form of appellant without insisting upon the validation of caste and to process the same as if appellant belonged to Scheduled Tribe, making it clear that admission if any made was provisional, and if the appellant failed in his petition, he will not be entitled to the benefit of degree he may obtain. As observed in Milind, if the appellant''s admission or degree is to be annulled, it is to nobody''s benefit as his seat cannot be offered to someone else. There is also no allegation that appellant forged or faked the caste certificate. His admission to engineering course was nearly thirteen years back and he secured the degree more than four years back. We are therefore of the view that the appellant herein should be permitted to retain the benefit of the degree but subject to terms. The first is that he shall not claim or seek any further benefit by claiming to belong to a Scheduled Tribe. The second is that if the State has spent or incurred any expenditure on the appellant''s professional degree education by extending the benefit of exemption from payment of fee or award of scholarship by extending the benefit of concession in fee (that is less than what is charged to general category students) by treating him as Scheduled Tribe candidate, the appellant cannot retain such financial benefits. The third Respondent may, on behalf of the State Government, take appropriate steps to enquire and assess the amount, if any spent on the appellant either towards fee, scholarship or by way of concession in fee and make a demand on appellant for payment thereof. It the appellant fails to pay the amount so found due within six months of the demand by the third Respondent, the third Respondent may take steps for recalling the degree granted to the appellant. If no amount is found to be due or if the amount determined and demanded is paid by appellant, he may be permitted to retain the degree obtained by him.

In the case on hand, since the petitioner has obtained MBBS degree on the basis of certificate claiming himself to be a ST candidate, and thus, the State has incurred heavy expenditures by granting exemption from payment of fee and was also granted other benefits and privileges. The Supreme Court, in categorical terms held that the benefit of a professional degree can be granted to the candidate only after treating him as a candidate of general category and as such, he cannot retain such financial benefits.

Accordingly, the State Government is directed to take appropriate steps to enquire and assess the amount if any, spent on the petitioner in his MBBS course. The petitioner (in W.P. (S) No. 6554 of 2007) shall be liable to pay fee as charged to the general category students. Thereafter, the petitioner would be entitled to claim service benefit as general category candidate, and not under any other category.

Since the petitioner was appointed on 18-3-1991 and has continued till date, at this stage, the appointment of the petitioner cannot be quashed. However, the State is at liberty to take appropriate steps after ascertaining and collecting the amount, if any, paid by the Government by way of concession in fee to the petitioner (in W.P. (S) No. 6554 of 2007). It is further made clear that the petitioner (in W.P. (S) No. 6554 of 2007) may not be entitled to any benefits, concession of reserved category of SC/ST except of OBC in future. The needful may be done by the State Government within a period of three months.

In view of the above, the impugned order dated 24-9-2007 [Annexure P/12 to W.P. (S) No. 6554/2007] is quashed. Accordingly, both the writ petitions are disposed of.