Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 637 (MP)

Domudas v. State of M. P.

2008-04-29

R.K.GUPTA

body2008
ORDER 1. In all the aforesaid 4 petitions the common question of law and facts are involved, therefore, all these petitions with the consent of the parties are heard jointly and are decided. 2. The petitioner filed this petition before this Court challenging the order Annexure A-5 in all the petitions, whereby the High Power Committee has cancelled the status certificate of the petitioner. According to the petitioner he does not belong to the Halba/Halbi (ST) community and in fact he is a member of Kosti community and thus, he belongs to the backward class. The petitioners are claiming the relief that benefit of the Milind's case [ AIR 2001 SC 393 ] be extended to them. 3. The petitioner initially was appointed as a Manager with the respondent in the Directorate of Rural Industries (Handloom). The petitioner was also declared as permanent on the post on which he was appointed. According to the petitioner, he was appointed on the basis of status certificate, which was surrendered by the petitioner and the petitioner claimed that he belongs to the Halba (ST) community and the said certificate was issued by Tahsildar Sounsar, District Chhindwara in the year 1983, copy of the same is filed as Annexure P-4. The employment was secured by the petitioner on the basis of false status certificate that he is ST. The respondents on the basis of judgment which is reported in AIR 2001 SC 393 , in the matter of State of Maharashtra v. Milind, wherein the Hon'ble apex Court held that Kostis have no identity as ST therefore they cannot claim that they belong to ST Community. The apex Court in the said judgment further held that the cases of status certificate of Halba (ST) shall not be reopened and shall remain unaffected. 4. Para 37 is reproduced as under: "Respondent No.1 joined the medical course for the year 1985-86. Almost 15 years have passed by now. We are told he has already completed the course and may be he is practising as doctor. In this view and at this length of time it is for nobody's benefit to annul his admission. Huge amount is spent on each candidate for completion of medical course. No doubt, one Scheduled Tribe candidate was deprived of joining medical course by the admission given to respondent No.1. In this view and at this length of time it is for nobody's benefit to annul his admission. Huge amount is spent on each candidate for completion of medical course. No doubt, one Scheduled Tribe candidate was deprived of joining medical course by the admission given to respondent No.1. If any action is taken against respondent No.1, it may lead depriving the service of a doctor to the society on whom public money has already been spent. In these circumstances, this judgment shall not affect the degree obtained by him and his practising as a doctor. But we make it clear that he cannot claim to belong to the Scheduled Tribe covered by the Scheduled Tribes Order. In other words, he cannot take advantage of the Scheduled Tribes order any further or for any other Constitutional purpose. Having regard to the passage of time, in the given circumstances, including interim orders passed by this Court in SLP (C) No. 16372/85 and other related affairs, we make it clear that the admissions and appointments that have become final, shall remain unaffected by this judgment." 5. The proceedings against the petitioner were initiated for the cancellation of the status certificate granted to the petitioner and ultimately it is found that the status certificate which was granted to the petitioner is liable to be cancelled because Koshti is S.T. and accordingly the respondents passed an order Annexure A-5 by which the status certificate is cancelled and accordingly it was also directed to take an action against the petitioner. 6. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has not made any submission with regard to the cancellation of the status certificate by the High Power Committee, but during the course of the arguments learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that since the apex Court in Milind's case has held that the benefit which was conferred to the community on the basis of status certificate issued then the benefit shall not be taken away. The submission made as aforesaid by the learned counsel for the petitioner is considered. The submission made as aforesaid by the learned counsel for the petitioner is considered. It is seen in the present case the apex Court in (2006) 2 SCC 471 , in the matter of LIC of India v. Sushil has considered Milind's case and ultimately the apex Court in para 6 held as under: "The protection under Milind case cannot be extended to respondent employee as the protection was given under the peculiar factual background of that case. The employee concerned was a doctor and had rendered long years of service. This Court noted that on a doctor public money been spent and, therefore, it will not be desirable to deprive the society of a doctor's service. Respondent 1 employee in the present case is an LIC employee and the factor which weighed with this Court cannot be applied to him." 7. The apex Court withdrew the impact of the Milind's case and ultimately apex Court held that the benefit of the Milind's case, wherein the apex Court directed that no action shall be taken further against such incumbents after the judgment in Milind's case, against those who have already taken the benefit of the status certificate, but the apex Court held that the said benefit was not extendable to the employees concerned but the benefit as such is to be given only to the Doctors, who have already carried out their studies and have also obtained the degree. 8. The apex Court further in Union of India v. Dattatray Namdeo Mendhekar and others [2008 AIR SCW 1939] and in para 5 has again considered the same. The para 5 of the judgment is reproduced which reads as under: "Milind (supra) related to a Medical College admission. The question that arose for consideration in that case was whether it was open to the State Government or Courts or other authorities to modify, amend or alter the list of Scheduled Tribes and in particular whether the 'Halba Koshti' was a sub-division of 'Halba' Tribe. This Court held that it was not permissible to amend or alter the list of Scheduled Tribes by including any sub-divisions or otherwise. This Court held that it was not permissible to amend or alter the list of Scheduled Tribes by including any sub-divisions or otherwise. On facts, this Court found that the respondent therein had been admitted in medical course in ST category, more than 15 years back; that though his admission deprived a scheduled tribe student of a medical seat, the benefit of that seat could not be offered to scheduled tribe student of a medical seat, the benefit of that seat could not be offered to scheduled tribe student at that distance of time even if respondent's admission was to be annulled; and that if his admission was annulled, it will lead to depriving the services of a doctor to the society on whom the public money had already been spent. In these peculiar circumstances, this Court held that the decision will not affect the degree secured by respondent or his practice as a doctor but made it clear that he could not claim to belong to a Scheduled Tribe. But the said decision has no applicable to a case which does not relate to an admission to an educational institution, but relates to securing employment by wrongly claiming the benefit of reservation meant for Scheduled Tribes. When a person secures employment by making a false claim regarding caste tribe, he deprives a legitimate candidate belonging to scheduled caste tribe, of employment. In such a situation, the proper course is to cancel the employment obtained on the basis of the false certificate so that the post may be filled up by a candidate who is entitled to the benefit of reservation. In this context, we may also refer to the decisions in Bank of India v. Avinash D. Mandivikar [ (2005) 7 SCC 690 J and Additional General Manager, Human Resources, Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd. v. Suresh Ramkrishna Burde [ (2007) 5 SCC 336 J, wherein this Court held that when a person secures appointment on the basis of a false caste certificate, he cannot be allowed to retain the benefit of the wrong committed by him and his services are liable to be terminated. In the latter case, this Court explained Milind thus: "The High Court has granted relief to the respondent and has directed his reinstatement only on the basis of the Constitution Bench decision of this Court in State of Maharashtra v. Milind. In the latter case, this Court explained Milind thus: "The High Court has granted relief to the respondent and has directed his reinstatement only on the basis of the Constitution Bench decision of this Court in State of Maharashtra v. Milind. In our opinion the said judgment does not lay down any such principle of law that where a person secures an appointment by producing a false caste certificate, his services can be protected and an order of reinstatement can be passed if he given an undertaking that in future he and his family members shall not take any advantage of being member of a caste which is in reserved category." This Court further held that even in cases of admission to educational institutions, the protection extended by Milind (supra) will be applicable only where the candidate had successfully completed the course and secured the degree, and not to cases where the falsehood of the caste certificate is detected within a short period from the date of admission. (emphasis applied) 9. On the basis of law laid down by the apex Court, the apex Court held that once benefit of the status has been taken prior to the judgment passed by apex Court in Milind's case then other benefits were not be made available to the employees, it was only available to the doctor or to the such students who have carried out their studies on the basis of the law laid down by the apex Court in Milind's case. The present case relates to the employment and not to the admission in the higher or technical education. 10. The apex Court has also explained the scope of the Milind's case for not taking an action against the persons those to have taken the advantage of the wrong status certificate and the said case subsequently since had already explained in apex Court in two of the aforesaid cases, therefore, the petitioner cannot be given benefit of the Milind's case by directing the respondents for not taking any action against the petitioner as employment is obtained by submitting a false certificate, which ultimately has also been cancelled by the High Power Committee. It is also not the case of the petitioner that petitioner belongs to the ST community and is Halba. 11. It is also not the case of the petitioner that petitioner belongs to the ST community and is Halba. 11. In view of the aforesaid law laid down by the apex Court I do not find any case for interference and the petition stand dismissed.