Radhey Mohan vs State of Rajasthan and Others

Ashok Parihar, J.—Petitioner, born in a Brahmin family on 1.4. 1944. after obtaining the Degree of master of Science in 1967, was initially appointed as Lecturer (mathematics) in Government college. Karauli on 7.8.1967. Subsequently, after regular selection to the post of Lecturer been made by RPSC and regular appointment been given, the petitioner was confirmed on the said post on 13.5.1972. It may be pertinent to mention that the petitioner applied for the post of Lecturer in pursuance to the advertisement issued by the RPSC as a general category candidate and name of his father was mentioned at Shri Tej Singh Vashishta.

Subsequently, an adoption deed as written and got registered on 27.11.1972, in which, it was alleged that the petitioner had gone into adoption to one Ram Lal Mochi son of Narain Lal Ji Mochi, resident of Karauli on 13.12.1958. On the basis of the above registered adoption deed dated 27.11.1972, the petitioner also obtained a certificate from the Additional District Magistrate, Dholpur dated 10.3.1978 certifying that petitioner been son of Ram Lal Mochi is belonging to Scheduled Caste by virtue of this adoption deed.

Alter having made a representation before the department in regard to treating him as member of SC, the name of the petitioner was also shown in the category of SC in the seniority list published on 21.3.1995. Taking available to the members of the SC. the petitioner is now praying for benefits available to the members of the SC with a further prayer for promotion to the post of Vice Principal from the dale his junior has been promoted, considering him as a SC candidate.

Petitioner, while heavily relying on the judgment of this Court in S.B. Cr. Petition No. 24/90 "Radhey Mohan v. Stale of Rajasthan'', has submitted that since the court has already quashed the charges levelled against the petitioner u/s 465, 468, 471, 419 and 120-B IPC in an application filed by the petitioner u/s 482 Cr.P.C. the petitioner should be treated as member of the SC for all purposes and he is entitled for all the benefits. Petitioner has prayed that since junior persons have already been pronounced as Vice Principal against the quota of SC. the petitioner is also entitled for promotion under the reserve quota from the dale his juniors have been so promoted.

After hearing the petitioner and Learned Counsel for the respondents. I have carefully gone through the entire material on record.

Petitioner has not been able to explain as to how for the first time the adoption deed was made and registered on 22.11.1972 only when the petitioner had already entered into the government service after due selection from the RPSC as a general category candidate. It has also not been disputed that while submitting his application form before the Commission, the petitioner mentioned the name of his father as Tej Singh Vashishta only. The petitioner once having joined the government service as a general category candidate, in my opinion, cannot claim further promotions as reserve category candidate only on the ground of adoption made.

The Apex Court, while recognizing inter-castes marriages and adoption, however, rejected the claim of such persons for promotion in the service in the cases of A.J. Joseph Vs. Union of India and others, The Apex court held that Dalits (SC) and Tribes (ST) suffered social and economic disabilities recognized by Articles 17 and 15(2). consequently, they become socially, culturally and educationally backward. The OBCs also suffered social and educational backwardness. The object of reservation is to remove these handicaps, disadvantages, sufferings and restrictions to which the members of the Dalits or Tribes or OBCs were subjected to and was sought to bring them in the mainstream of the nation''s life by providing them opportunities and facilities. Education, employment and economic empowerment arc sonic of the programme, the Stale has evolved and has also provided reservation in admission into educational institutions, or in case of other economic benefits under Articles 15(4) and 46. or in appointment to an office or a post under the Slate under Article 16(4).

The Court further observed that when a member is transplanted into the Dalits. Tribes and OBCs, he/she must of necessity disabilities, disadvantages, indignities or sufferings so as to entitle the candidate to avail the facility of reservation.

The Apex Court, in the above case, however, observed that a candidate who had the advantageous start in life being born in forward caste and had march of advantageous life but is transplanted in backward caste by adoption or marriage or conversion, docs not become eligible to the benefit of reservation cither under Article 16(4) or 16(4). as the case may be. Acquisition of the status of Scheduled Caste etc. by voluntary mobility into these categories would play fraud on the Constitution, and would frustrate the benign constitutional policy under Articles 15(4) and 16(4). The recognition of the candidate by the members of backward class would not be relevant for the purpose of his entitlement to the reservation under Article 16(4).

In the present case also, the petitioner born in a Brahmin family long back on 1.4.1944 alleged to have gone into adoption in the year 1958, whereas, the adoption deed Wits made and registered only in the year 1972, after the petitioner having already appointed as Lecturer and confirmed also on the same post. I am of the opinion that the petitioner cannot be allowed to claim further promotion against the reserve category quota, more so, in view of the judgment of the Apex Court, as referred to above. The whole sequence of events creates serious doubts on the bona fide of the petitioner.

Accordingly, I find no merit in this writ petition and the same is dismissed with a costs of Rs. 5,000/-, which can be recovered by the respondents from the salary of the petitioner.