Kiranbala Singh vs The State of Madhya Pradesh

K.K. Trivedi, J.—This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is directed against the order dated 05.07.2013 passed by the Director, Prosecution, Madhya Pradesh, Bhopal, by which while considering the representation made by the petitioner in terms of order dated 03.06.2013 passed in W.P. No.7488/2010, final decision has been taken for termination of services of the petitioner.

The petitioner was selected and appointed on the post of Assistant District Prosecution Officer vide order dated 01.06.1996 in reserved category. Such an appointment was given to the petitioner on her selection by the Madhya Pradesh Public Service Commission. A complaint was received in respect of the appointment of the petitioner alleging that only on the basis of a forged caste certificate, the petitioner has obtained appointment. Such a complaint was made over to the Collector, Jabalpur for conducting an enquiry. The said enquiry was made over to the enquiry officer, who after conducting an enquiry, submitted a report holding that the petitioner was not belonging to the scheduled tribe community. The appointment of the petitioner was cancelled by the State Government on the basis of such report, which order was sought to be challenged in O.A. No.2076/1998 before the M.P. State Administrative Tribunal by the petitioner. The said original application was allowed on 26.02.2000 and the order passed by the State Government was set aside. However, liberty was granted to the State Government to conduct an enquiry before the competent authority, precisely the High Power Screening Committee. This order was sought to be challenged in the writ petition by the State Government before the Division Bench of this Court in W.P. No.4146/2000, which was dismissed on 31.07.2000. The State Government thereafter referred the matter to the High Power Screening Committee, constituted in terms of the law laid-down by the Apex Court in the Case of Kumari Madhuri Patila and another Vs. Addl. Commissioner, Tribal Development and others, . The said committee after conducting an enquiry, gave a report on 11.03.2010 saying that the certificate produced by the petitioner was found to be forged one and a direction was given to the Collector, Jabalpur for cancellation of the said certificate. This recommendation made by the High Power Screening Committee was sought to be challenged in W.P. No.7488/2010 (S). The said writ petition was disposed of vide order dated 03.06.2013 directing the respondents to consider the representation of the petitioner in terms of the law laid-down by the Apex Court in the case of Dattu vs. State of Maharashtra, 2012 (1) MPWN 124. After such consideration, since the representation is rejected by the impugned order, this writ petition is required to be filed.

This writ petition was entertained on 01.04.2014 and since it was found by this Court that the order impugned is contrary to the law laid-down by the Apex Court in the case of Dattu (supra), the writ petition was admitted and an interim protection was granted to the petitioner. A return has been filed by the respondents contending inter alia that the order was rightly passed as in the screening conducted by the High Power Screening Committee, it was found that the certificate obtained by the petitioner was not proper and, therefore, the same was set aside. It is, thus, contended that in view of the aforesaid, the certificate of caste of the petitioner was required to be cancelled and she was not to be given the benefit of the said certificate. Appreciating all these facts, recommendations were made by the Director, Prosecution, that the petitioner should not be allowed to remain in the employment but no recovery of the salary paid to her is required to be made. It is thus contended that in view of the well considered law, petitioner would not be entitled to any relief and the writ petition is liable to be dismissed.

An application for vacation of the interim relief is also made. At the same time, the petitioner has also made an application for final disposal of the writ petition, therefore, parties are heard at length.

It is no doubt that recommendations have been made by the High Power Screening Committee for cancellation of caste certificate issued in favour of the petitioner. It is also not in dispute that such recommendations have not been disturbed by this Court while remitting back the matter to the respondents to consider the representation of the petitioner. The order passed by the Court in W.P. No.7488/2010(S) on 03.06.2013 is required to be appreciated as a whole, therefore, the same is reproduced below :

� Shri Prashant Singh, Advocate for the petitioner.

Shri Sanjay Dwivedi, Govt. Advocate for the respondents.

Prayer made in this petition for quashing the order dated 11.3.2010, annexure P/8, passed by the respondents whereby it was found that the petitioner is not having a valid caste certificate.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is in job since last 20 years. Learned counsel has placed reliance on a decision of the Hon''ble Apex Court in the matter of Dattu Vs. State of Maharashtra, 2012(1) MPWN 124, wherein the Hon''ble Apex Court has held that the advantage which the petitioner has already taken, shall not be disturbed. However, the employee shall not be entitled to take any further advantage of reservation in future. Learned counsel submits that similar direction be issued in favour of the petitioner.

In the facts and circumstances of the case, petition filed by the petitioner is disposed of with a short direction that the petitioner shall move an appropriate representation before the competent authority wherein the petitioner should not be disturbed and no further advantage be given to the petitioner. If such a representation is filed along with copy of the order passed by this Court and also copy of the order passed in the matter of Dattu Vs. State of Maharashtra (supra), the competent authority shall decide the same by passing a reasoned order keeping in view the law laid down by the Hon''ble Apex Court.

It is made clear that while considering the representation of the petitioner for the advantages already given to the petitioner, the impugned order shall not come in the way as the petitioner is working and is also having interim order in her favour.

With the aforesaid direction, this petition stands disposed of.�

The only question which is now required to be examined is whether representation of the petitioner was to be considered in terms of the law laid-down by the Apex Court in the case of Dattu (supra) or not. It is pointed out by learned Counsel for the petitioner that considering various aspects the Apex Court in paragraphs 7, 8 and 9 of the judgment given in the case of Dattu (supra) has categorically said that whatever advantages have been received by the candidates on the strength of the certificate, which is held to be invalid subsequently, would not be taken away. It is also contended by learned Counsel for the petitioner that in the case of Shalini Vs. New English High Sch. Assn. & others, Civil Appeal No.10997/2013 (arising out of S.L.P.(C) No.2680/2010, vide judgment dated 12th December, 2013, again the very same aspects have been reiterated and the Apex Court has said that even if somebody has been removed from service on account of such a report, given by the High Power Screening Committee after verification of the caste certificate, is required to be reinstated in service but would not be granted the benefit of the reservation on the strength of said certificate in future. It is thus contended that a simple meaning would be that the petitioner is entitled to remain in the employment but would not be entitled to any other service benefit of reservation on the basis of disputed certificate of caste.

Learned Govt. Advocate has tried to contend that opinion given by the Director, Prosecution, is just and proper. After due consideration of the rival submissions, this Court is of the considered opinion that such an opinion expressed by the Director, Prosecution, was just contrary to the law laid-down by the Apex Court in the case of Dattu (supra), reiterated in the case of Shalini (supra). On many occasions this aspect has been examined by this Court. The State Government itself has issued circular in that respect on the strength of law laid-down by the Apex Court in the case of Dattu (supra). The other High Courts have also looked into such an aspect and have very categorically held that discontinuance from service only because of the declaration of a caste certificate at a later stage as invalid, is not necessary nor warranted in terms of the law laid-down by the Apex Court in the case of Dattu (supra). One such decision has been rendered by the Chhattisgarh High Court in W.P. (S) No.1195/2012 and W.P. (S) No.1533/2012, decided on 8th April, 2013.

That being so, the opinion expressed by the Director, Prosecution, in his communication dated 05.07.2013 cannot be sustained. Even if any order of termination is issued because of such opinion, the same is also not sustainable. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. The recommendation dated 05.07.2013, so far as removal from service of petitioner is recommended, is hereby quashed. If any order of termination is issued by the respondents-State pursuance to the said recommendation, it also stands quashed. If the petitioner is continuing in the employment on the strength of interim stay, she will continue to work on the post but would not be entitled to any benefit of reservation in terms of certificate of caste produced by her. In case the petitioner is removed from service on the basis of such recommendation, she be reinstated in service forthwith.

The writ petition is allowed to the extent indicated herein above. There shall be no order as to costs.