Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Ashok S/o Jangluji Pimpalghare, was appointed as a Lecturer by Canara Bank on 06.12.1988 against a vacancy reserved for Scheduled Tribe. After fourteen years of service, his caste claim was referred to the Caste Scrutiny Committee, which invalidated it on 21.10.2003. Consequently, the bank terminated his services on 03.01.2005. The petitioner filed a writ petition before the Bombay High Court, which granted protection of service relying on the case of State of Maharashtra v. Milind Katware. The bank appealed to the Supreme Court, which set aside the High Court's order and upheld the termination, holding that fraud vitiates everything. Subsequently, on 16.10.2012, the petitioner filed the present writ petition claiming protection based on an Office Memorandum dated 10.08.2010 that included Halba Koshti as a Scheduled Tribe. The High Court dismissed the petition, holding that the matter is res judicata as the Supreme Court had already upheld the termination. The court noted that the subsequent Office Memorandum cannot override a final judgment and that the petitioner cannot seek to revive a concluded matter. The court also observed that the petitioner had not challenged the invalidation of his caste claim or the termination order, and the Supreme Court's decision is binding. The petition was dismissed with no order as to costs.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Caste Claim - Res Judicata - The petitioner's caste claim was invalidated by the Caste Scrutiny Committee on 21.10.2003, and his termination was upheld by the Supreme Court. The subsequent Office Memorandum dated 10.08.2010 including Halba Koshti as Scheduled Tribe cannot revive the claim as the matter is final. (Paras 2-5)
B) Constitutional Law - Scheduled Tribes - Office Memorandum - An Office Memorandum cannot override a final judgment of the Supreme Court. The petitioner cannot seek protection based on a subsequent government resolution after the caste claim has been finally adjudicated. (Para 5)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the petitioner is entitled to protection of service based on a subsequent Office Memorandum dated 10.08.2010 including Halba Koshti as Scheduled Tribe, despite the earlier invalidation of his caste claim and termination upheld by the Supreme Court.
Final Decision
The writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Res Judicata
- Caste Claim Invalidated
- Termination Upheld by Supreme Court
- Subsequent Government Resolution Cannot Override Final Judgment
- Fraud Vitiates Everything
Case Details
2013 LawText (BOM) (08) 150
Writ Petition No. 5609/2012
Shri S.R. Narnaware for petitioner, Shri Gurbani h/f Shri M.P. Lala for respondents
Ashok S/o Jangluji Pimpalghare
Senior Manager, Canara Bank, Divisional Office, Nagpur and General Manager, North Circle Office, Mumbai
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition seeking protection of service based on subsequent government resolution including Halba Koshti as Scheduled Tribe, despite earlier invalidation of caste claim and termination upheld by Supreme Court.
Remedy Sought
Petitioner sought protection of service and reinstatement based on Office Memorandum dated 10.08.2010.
Filing Reason
Petitioner claimed that the Office Memorandum dated 10.08.2010 including Halba Koshti as Scheduled Tribe entitles him to protection of service, despite his caste claim being invalidated and termination upheld by Supreme Court.
Previous Decisions
Caste Scrutiny Committee invalidated caste claim on 21.10.2003; termination on 03.01.2005; High Court granted protection in WP 325/2005; Supreme Court set aside High Court order and upheld termination.
Issues
Whether the petitioner can claim protection based on a subsequent Office Memorandum after the caste claim was invalidated and termination upheld by the Supreme Court.
Whether the principle of res judicata applies to bar the present petition.
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioner argued that the Office Memorandum dated 10.08.2010 including Halba Koshti as Scheduled Tribe entitles him to protection of service.
Respondents argued that the matter is res judicata as the Supreme Court has already upheld the termination and the caste claim was invalidated.
Ratio Decidendi
A subsequent government resolution or Office Memorandum cannot override a final judgment of the Supreme Court. The principle of res judicata applies, and the petitioner cannot seek to revive a concluded matter where the caste claim has been invalidated and termination upheld.
Judgment Excerpts
Once, it has been found that the caste certificate is false, obviously respondent No.1 has to lose his job because it is well settled that fraud vitiates every thing.
The petitioner cannot claim protection on the basis of the Office Memorandum dated 10.08.2010 as the matter is already concluded by the Supreme Court.
Procedural History
Petitioner appointed on 06.12.1988; caste claim invalidated on 21.10.2003; terminated on 03.01.2005; filed WP 325/2005, High Court granted protection; bank appealed to Supreme Court, which set aside High Court order and upheld termination; petitioner filed present WP on 16.10.2012 claiming protection based on Office Memorandum dated 10.08.2010; present judgment dated 19.08.2013 dismisses petition.
Acts & Sections
