Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Shri Sadanand Raghunath Gharat, was appointed as Inspector of Central Excise on 3rd December 1977 by the office of the Collector of Central Excise, Bombay. The Establishment Order No. 374/1977 dated 6th December 1977 recorded his appointment against a post reserved for Scheduled Tribe (ST) candidates, indicated by '(S.T.)' against his name. The petitioner claimed he was not appointed on a reserved post, but the record showed otherwise. Subsequently, his caste certificate was cancelled by the Scrutiny Committee. The petitioner filed Original Application No. 19 of 2013 before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Mumbai Bench, seeking to quash the cancellation and protect his appointment. The Tribunal dismissed the application on 4th January 2019, holding that the cancellation of the certificate did not affect his appointment as it was made after due verification. Aggrieved, the petitioner filed the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. The High Court heard the matter afresh and dismissed the petition, upholding the Tribunal's order. The court held that the appointment was made after due verification of the caste certificate and no fraud or misrepresentation was alleged against the petitioner. The subsequent cancellation of the certificate does not automatically invalidate the appointment. The court also noted that the petitioner did not challenge the cancellation order, and the cancellation was not a ground to disturb the appointment. The court emphasized that the right to appointment is not defeated by a later cancellation of the certificate if the candidate was not at fault. The petition was dismissed with no order as to costs.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Reservation - Scheduled Tribe - Caste Certificate - Cancellation - Validity of Appointment - The issue was whether the cancellation of a caste certificate after appointment can invalidate the appointment made on the basis of that certificate. The court held that where the appointment was made after due verification of the caste certificate and no fraud or misrepresentation was alleged, the subsequent cancellation of the certificate does not automatically invalidate the appointment. The court relied on the principle that the right to appointment is not defeated by a later cancellation of the certificate if the candidate was not at fault. (Paras 1-19) B) Service Law - Appointment - Reserved Post - Verification - The court considered the effect of the Establishment Order recording the petitioner's appointment against an ST quota. The court noted that the appointment was made after the certificate was verified by the appointing authority, and the petitioner had no role in the cancellation. The court held that the appointment cannot be disturbed on the ground of subsequent cancellation of the certificate. (Paras 3-15) C) Service Law - Caste Certificate - Cancellation - Natural Justice - The court observed that the cancellation of the caste certificate was done without giving the petitioner an opportunity of hearing, but since the petitioner did not challenge the cancellation, the court did not go into that aspect. However, the court held that the cancellation does not ipso facto affect the appointment. (Paras 16-19)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the cancellation of a caste certificate after appointment can invalidate the appointment made on the basis of that certificate, especially when the appointment was made after due verification and no fraud was alleged.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal. The court held that the cancellation of the caste certificate does not invalidate the appointment as the appointment was made after due verification and no fraud was alleged. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Service Law
- Reservation
- Scheduled Tribe
- Caste Certificate
- Appointment
- Cancellation of Certificate
- Estoppel
- Fraud
