JUDGMENT 1. - To an advertisement No. 6 Category No. 126/Selections/93/94 for filling up 25 posts of Lecturers in Sanskrit in College Education Department which carried the minimum qualification of post graduate degree in Sanskrit subject with 55% marks at least along with Ph. D or National Level Eligibility Test, the petitioner having fulfilling the qualifications applied for the post of Lecturer in Sanskrit. He was called for interview on 11.3.1996. He appeared in the interview with all his original documents including the Caste Certificate. He was selected having been found fit and was appointed by the respondent No. 4 vide order dated 14.6.1996, copy of which has been attached as Annexure - 2. He joined the duties at Maharani Shri Jaya College, Bharatpur in the month of July, 1996 vide Annexure-2. His services were terminated on 13.12.1996((Annexure-4) on the ground that the certificate of the petitioner belonging to Scheduled Caste was a forged one. Being aggrieved against the order Annexure-4 dated 13.12.1996, the petitioner filed a writ petition being S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 427/97 which writ petition was allowed and a direction was issued to the respondents to hold an enquiry in regard to the allegations regarding forged certificate of being Scheduled Caste by the petitioner. 2. This Court passed an order 24.1.1997, operative part of which is reproduced as under - "It has been submitted by Shri Chetan Bairwa that the order of termination is clearly illegal as the petitioner should not have been dismissed from service without any show cause notice or without granting him any opportunity to explain the position. The submission is partially of some substance. I, therefore, direct the competent authorities to hold enquiry in regard to the allegation regarding production of forged caste certificate by the petitioner and give reasons for holding so. It goes without saying that if at all the finding regarding forgery committed by the petitioner is found to be un-substantiated, he will be at liberty to move this Court for his reinstatement. The enquiry may be completed preferably within a period of four months." 3. An enquiry was held in this regard. It goes without saying that if at all the finding regarding forgery committed by the petitioner is found to be un-substantiated, he will be at liberty to move this Court for his reinstatement. The enquiry may be completed preferably within a period of four months." 3. An enquiry was held in this regard. It was found that even though the certificate had been issued by the Tehsildar, but the certificate was illegal and as another Annexure-9 dated 30.7.1997 was passed, informing the petitioner that the certificate of being Scheduled Caste produced by him was invalid and in case he wants to represent, he was free to do so. The petitioner represented vide Annexure-10. 4. The contention of the petitioner is that the certificate was declared to be invalid and not the forged one and no reason has been given as to why the certificate produced by the petitioner could not be relied upon. 5. It is the contention of the petitioner that he is the natural born son of Shri Radhey Mohan who was a member of Scheduled Caste. His father was adopted by one Shri Ramlal Mochi on 13.12.1958. His father was brought up by said Ramlal Mochi. A formal adoption deed as registered on 27.11.1972 is also attached as Annexure-11. It is submitted that when his father was adopted by the SC, the ancestral family of the petitioner i.e. the father's family had even agitated and even an FIR was registered with the police against the adopted father which FIR was ultimately quashed by this Court vide order 22.8.1991 (Annexure-12). 6. It is the submission of the petitioner that once his father was adopted by Ramlal a SC, his father had become SC and being the natural son of his father who was a SC by adoption, the petitioner automatically becomes SC and thus the certificate issued by the Tehsildar declaring him to be a member of SC cannot be said to be an invalid certificate. It is further submitted that because of this reason the original family of the father of the petitioner was still having grudge against the family of the petitioner and, therefore, lodged an FIR on 19.6.1996 on the ground that the certificate petitioner being SC issued by the Tehsildar was forged one, the FIR is attached as Annexure- 13. The petitioner had approached the Court for quashing the FIR and criminal Misc. The petitioner had approached the Court for quashing the FIR and criminal Misc. Petition 68/97, the High Court had ultimately quashed the FIR on 25.7.1997 vide Annexure-14. It was observed that Radhey Mohan was adopted son in the family of Ramlal and being adopted son of 'Chamar', he has also become SC. It was also observed by this Court that the judgment given in the case of Radhey Mohan would stand as it is. The petitioner submits that ever since his birth in 'Chamar' family, the petitioner was brought up in the Scheduled Caste family. A prayer has been made for quashing the order dated 13.12.1996 (Annexure-4) and letters dated 30.7.1997 (Annexure-9) and 29.9.1997 (Annexure-17). 7. Reply has been filed on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 to 3. It is stated that the Tehsildar Bharatpur had issued a certificate to the petitioner on 16.6.1994 to the effect that the petitioner belongs to Scheduled Caste. However, on receiving the complaint a reference was made to Tehsildar as to how and under what circumstances Tehsildar had issued the certificate which was replied by the Tehsildar that he had written the certificate on 17.7.1997 after holding an enquiry. The withdrawal of the certificate has been attached as Annexure R-1/2. It is submitted that final action of the respondents is based on the enquiry made by the Tehsildar on withdrawal of the certificate by the Tehsildar. However, it has been admitted in para 16 that the adoption deed in regard to the father of the petitioner was not a forged document and, therefore, Radhey Mohan was properly; adopted by Ramlal. 8. The facts as emerged from the pleadings of the parties are : (1) one Radhey Mohan belonging to higher class was adopted in the year 1972 by way of proper adoption-deed (2) an FIR was lodged against such adoption which was ultimately quashed by this Court holding that the adoption was in accordance with law ; (3) the petitioner was born to the adopted son and is a natural son of the father who was adopted by a scheduled caste family ; (4) a certificate was issued by the Tehsildar that the petitioner belonged to the schedule caste family. (5) the petitioner was duly selected out of reserve class quota ; (6) a complaint was made and FIR was lodged and the FIR was quashed holding that the petitioner remained the natural son of Radhey Mohan who was adopted by a 'Chamar' Ram Lal ; (7) the petitioner is terminated from service vide Annexure-4 ; (8) the petitioner challenges the order of termination on the ground that no enquiry had been held ; (9) the reference was made to the Tehsildar to verify the fact and the Tehsildar withdraws the order of issuance of certificate in July, 1997 i.e. after termination of service. 9. The first question which arises for determination is whether a person who is adopted by a Scheduled Caste is inducted in the scheduled caste family and becomes the scheduled caste himself and whether such person is entitled to the benefits accruing to the reserve class. 10. Another question may arise in the present case for determination is whether a natural son born to such an adopted father by a scheduled caste is entitled to the benefits of reservations. 11. Counsel for the respondents rely on the Supreme Court decision in the case of Mrs. Valsamma Paul v. Cochin University and others AIR 1996 Supreme Court 1011, wherein in paras 33, 34 and 36 the Hon'ble Supreme Court was seized of the question : "Whether a lady marrying a Scheduled Caste, Scheduled Tribe or OBC citizen, or one transplanted by adoption or any other voluntary act, ipso facto, becomes entitled to claim reservation under Article 15(4) or 16(4) of the Constitution of India? It was observed in the case of Murlidhar Dayandeo Kesekar v. Vishwanath Pandu (1995) 3 JT (SC) 563 and R. Chandevarappa v. State of Karnataka (1995) 7 JT (SC) 93 that economic empowerment is a fundamental right to the poor and the State is enjoined under Articles 15(3), 46 and 39 to provide them opportunities. Therefore, when a member is transplanted into the Dalits, Tribes and OBCs, he/she must of necessity also undergo same handicaps, be subject to the same disabilities, disadvantages, indignities or sufferings so as to entitle the candidate to avail the facility of reservation. Acquisition of the status of Scheduled Caste etc. Therefore, when a member is transplanted into the Dalits, Tribes and OBCs, he/she must of necessity also undergo same handicaps, be subject to the same disabilities, disadvantages, indignities or sufferings so as to entitle the candidate to avail the facility of reservation. 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) of the Constitution of India." 12. In the above said case the Supreme Court was seized of the matter of a convert and it was held that to avoid any fraud on the Constitution or foul play, a convert from high class family going to Scheduled Caste may not be entitled to the benefits of reservations. But are these observations equally applicable to a son of convert who has been born in the Scheduled Caste family? 13. The Supreme Court had observed that if the act of conversion of the convert is voluntary and having born in high class, he may not be entitled for the benefit of the reservations, but in the present case a son born to a convert cannot be said to have been inducted in the family of Scheduled Caste voluntarily as to be deprived of the benefits of reservation for the reason what such son born to a convert cannot be said to have adopted the Scheduled Caste religion as his voluntary act. The voluntary act of his father who had been adopted in the Scheduled Caste family cannot be made applicable to the sufferings of such adopted person and in my opinion, the facts in the present case are distinguishable from the Supreme Court decision in Valsamma Paul (supra). It is not denied that his father was adopted by a Scheduled Caste as far back as in (1958). His father might not be entitled to the benefits. The petitioner being born to such Scheduled Caste does acquire the Scheduled Caste status by birth and not by voluntary act and, therefore, any Scheduled Caste who acquires the status by birth is entitled to the benefits of reservations for being born in Scheduled Caste family as he does not fall under the category of adoption or inducted in the Scheduled Caste family because of his own volition. 14. 14. For the reasons mentioned above and in view of the judgment of this Court as reproduced above in Civil Writ Petition No. 427/97 (Annexure-5) in the case of the petitioner, the petitioner shall be entitled to be continued in service and deemed to be in service where he was selected and posted. The impugned orders Annexures 4 and 17 and any subsequent order passed in consequence of Annexure 4 and 17 are quashed. 15. The writ petition is allowed with no order as to costs.Petition allowed. *******