Indian Council Of Agricultural Research And Ors vs Yogendra Singh

Dr. Pushpendra Singh Bhati, J.

This writ petition has been preferred claiming the following reliefs:

“It is, therefore, humbly prayed that this writ petition may kindly be allowed and the impugned order dated 21.8.2019 (Annx.4) passed by learned

Tribunal may kindly be quashed and set aside.

Any other appropriate writ, order or direction, which this Hon’ble Court may deem it just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case

may kindly be issued in favour of the petitioners.

Costs of this writ petition may kindly be awarded in favour of the petitioners.â€​

The genesis of the present dispute lies in the order dated 11.03.2014 passed by the Director, Central Arid Zone Research Institute (Indian Council

of Agricultural Research), Jodhpur (Rajasthan), terminating the services of the respondent/applicant, from the post of T-3 (Lab Technician)

(Laboratory Group) at CAZRI’s RRS, Leh. However, the said order was challenged by the respondent/applicant by filing Original Application

No.290/00171/2014.

Background facts of this case, as noticed by this Court, are that the respondent/applicant had applied for the post of T-3 (Lab Technician), and after

undergoing the regular selection process, he was selected, and accordingly, joined the duties on the said post with effect from 17.12.2013. However,

the services of the respondent/applicant came to be terminated vide order dated 11.03.2014, as mentioned above. The ground for such termination

was that the respondent/applicant produced an inappropriate OBC Certificate issued by Tehsildar, Etmadpur, Agra, on the basis whereof, the

appointment on the post in question had been secured by the respondent/applicant.

The aforementioned termination was contested by the respondent/applicant on the ground that removal from service is a major penalty as per Rule

11 of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1965, and that, without a detailed and proper enquiry, as stipulated under the

Rules of 1965, the conclusion in regard to the charge of concealment of material information in respect of his OBC Certificate, as arrived at qua the

respondent/applicant, was against the parameters of the principles of natural justice.

Learned counsel for the appellants made his submissions principally on the ground that the Office Memorandum No.36033/5/2004-Estt. (Res) dated

14.10.2004 issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances & Pensions, Department of Personnel & Training was a

guiding policy regarding determination of the creamy layer amongst OBCs, which debars the present respondent/applicant from continuing in service.

Learned counsel further submits that the appellant/Institute has relied upon clause (c) of the aforesaid office memorandum, which, in regard to the

children of the persons in civil services of the Central and the State Governments, provides that if parents, both of whom are directly recruited Class

I/Group A officers, but one of them dies or suffers permanent incapacitation, their children shall be treated as falling in creamy layer.

Learned counsel for the respondent/applicant however, has relied upon the clarification, in regard to clause (v) of Para 4 of the aforementioned

office memorandum, issued vide Para 7 thereof.

For ready reference, the clause (v) of Para 4 as well as Para 7, clarifying the said clause (v), read as under:

“4. Following questions have been raised from time to time about the application of the above provisions to determine creamy layer:

(v) Will the sons and daughters of parent of whom husband is directly recruited Class III/Group C or Class IV/Group D employee and he gets into

Class I/Group A at the age of 40 or earlier be treated to be falling in creamy layer?â€​

“7. In regard to clause (v) of para 4, it is clarified that the sons and daughters of parents of whom only the husband is a directly recruited Class

II/Group B officer who gets into Class I/Group A at the age of 40 or earlier are treated to be in creamy layer. If the father is directly recruited Class

III/Group C or Class IV/Group D employee and he gets into Class I/Group A at the age of 40 or earlier, his sons and daughters shall not be treated to

be falling in creamy layer.â€​

Learned counsel, in this regard, submits that it is an admitted position that since respondent/applicant’s father was directly recruited as Class III,

and then later on travelled to Class I, therefore, the respondent/applicant cannot be treated to be falling in creamy layer.

On such limited submissions, this Court finds that Shri Gitam Singh, father of the present respondent/applicant was initially appointed as Class III

non gazetted vide memorandum dated 03.10.1975, and as per aforequoted para 7 of the office memorandum dated 14.10.2004, if he gets into Class I

subsequently, then his children cannot be treated to be falling in the creamy layer.

The learned Tribunal has rightly held that since the respondent/applicant, who joined the services of the appellants on the post of T-3 (Lab. Tech.)

reserved for OBC Category (non-creamy layer) with effect from 17.12.2013 pursuant to the advertisement dated 18.05.2013 after due selection

process, therefore, as per the stipulations made in the aforesaid office memorandum dated 14.10.2004, the respondent/applicant does not come under

the creamy layer for the purpose of reservation for the OBC, as his father Shri Gitam Singh was initially appointed on Class III post, and thereafter, he

was recruited on Class I/Group A post; the same has been recorded by the District Magistrate, Agra, in his findings, that respondent/applicant’s

father was first appointed on Class III post and thereafter, on Class I post.

This Court also finds that the order of termination dated 11.03.2014 on the ground of concealment of material fact and information, has rightly not

been accepted by the learned Tribunal, as there was no cancellation of the OBC Certificate by the District Magistrate, Agra, and the issuance of the

certificate by the competent authority is not disputed. Moreover, to prove the charge of concealment of material information, no formal disciplinary

enquiry was conducted by the appellant/Institute, and thus, merely a simple show cause notice followed by the termination order, could not have been

issued.

In light of the aforesaid observations, no case for interference in the impugned order passed by the learned Tribunal is made out.

Consequently, the present writ petition is dismissed. All pending applications also stand dismissed.