Research › Search › Judgment

Kerala High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 869 (KER)

K. Rameshan 'Aswathi' v. State of Kerala

2019-10-28

P.V.ASHA

body2019
JUDGMENT : Ext.P13 proceedings of the Scrutiny committee for verification of community certificate as well as Ext.P14 order passed by the 1st respondent consequent to the same are under challenge in this Writ Petition. 2. The petitioner joined the Kerala Police Department as a Police Constable in the year 1972 through special recruitment for Scheduled caste/Scheduled Tribe and retired from service on 31.03.2004. In the SSLC Book of the petitioner his community was shown as Chakkiliyan, which is a Scheduled Caste Community. It is stated that the Tahsildar had issued a community certificate to the effect that he belongs to Chakkiliyan community. He got employment producing the said certificate in the reservation quota for Scheduled Caste community. The petitioner claims that his father was a cobbler hailing from the border of Madras State and that he came to Kannur in search of job; his father and father's brother belonged to Chakkiliyan community; the children of his father's brother also enjoyed the benefits available to the Scheduled Caste community based on similar certificates issued by the Tahsildars. The KIRTADS had conducted an enquiry and submitted a report 10.06.1993 that the petitioner's father Kunhiraman and mother Narayani belonged to Tholkollan alias Perumkollan community. It was found that the petitioner and his siblings were admitted in the School between 1951 and 1957 entering the name community as Perumkollan. On the basis of the report of KIRTADS the Government issued Ext.P2 order on 29.11.1993 to take steps against the petitioner, who was then working as Head Constable as he got employment as Police Constable against a vacancy reserved for a member of Scheduled caste. It was also directed that the community certificates issued to the members of his family shall be corrected substituting their community as OBC as they actually belonged to Perumkollan community. On the basis of the Government Order, the Superintendent of Police, initiated action against him and issued order dated 03.04.1994 removing him from service. The petitioner challenged the proceedings based on Ext.P2 order in O.P.No.1716/1994 which was disposed of as per Ext.P3 judgment directing the Government to consider the review petition filed by him. Seeing that the order of removal was passed without following the procedure prescribed under the Kerala Police Department Enquiry Punishment and Appeal Rules, 1958 the Government set aside the order of removal remitting the matter to the disciplinary authority for de- novo action. Seeing that the order of removal was passed without following the procedure prescribed under the Kerala Police Department Enquiry Punishment and Appeal Rules, 1958 the Government set aside the order of removal remitting the matter to the disciplinary authority for de- novo action. Thereafter, Ext.P5 memo of charge was issued to him alleging that he secured employment as Police Constable under the special recruitment for SC/ST submitting false community certificate as to Scheduled caste status when he actually belonged to Paricha Perumkollan community. He submitted his explanation Ext.P6 and thereafter approached this Court in O.P.No.7768/1995. This Court found that the community certificate which was issued by the competent authority before the commencement of Kerala (Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes) Regulation of Issue of Community Certificates Act 1996 ('Act 11 of 1996') was not cancelled in accordance with the provisions contained in the Act, for which the competent authority was scrutiny committee constituted under Section 11 of the Act. The Writ Petition was therefore disposed of as per Ext.P7 judgment, leaving it open to the respondents to take action in accordance with the provisions contained in Act 11/1996. Even though a time limit was fixed and it was directed to pay the retirement benefits of the petitioner, the said direction was modified by Ext.P9 order in R.P.No.529/09 directing completion of the proceedings. The Vigilance Officer of the Directorate of KIRTADS after taking evidence submitted a report before the scrutiny committee with the finding that the petitioner does not belong to Chakkiliyan(SC) community and that he belongs to Perumkollan OBC and recommending action to cancel the community certificate issued to him and to take steps to recover the benefits received. The scrutiny committee thereupon issued Ext.P11 show cause notice forwarding the report of the KIRTADS and asking to show cause why the community certificate should not be cancelled. In this report it was found that the petitioner's paternal grand father who hailed from Chovva in Kannur district belonged to Perumkollan community. His wife, who hailed from Kozhikode district also belongs to Perumkollan community. It was found that his paternal grand father and grand mother had three children including Sri.Kunhiraman, father of the petitioner and all of them belonged to Perumkollan community. His wife, who hailed from Kozhikode district also belongs to Perumkollan community. It was found that his paternal grand father and grand mother had three children including Sri.Kunhiraman, father of the petitioner and all of them belonged to Perumkollan community. The Vigilance Officer found that petitioner's paternal grand father late Imbichi and his family members had migrated from Kozhikode to Kannur and petitioner's father Kunhiraman was born in Perumkollan community which is recognised as OBC. It was found that petitioner's mother hailing from Thalassery belonged to Perumkollan community. In respect of petitioner's maternal grand father and his family members also it was found that they belong to Perumkollan community. Petitioner's mother and father Kunhiraman were found to be members of Perumkollan community. In the case of petitioner's sister Dhanalakshmi, it was seen that her caste name was shown in the admission register of GUP School as Parisa Perumkollan, which is included in the OBC list. It was found that the genealogical and documentary evidence proved that the petitioner was born and brought up in Perumkollan community. The petitioner submitted Ext.P12 representation before the Chairman of the scrutiny committee stating that the entries in the admission register as well as SSLC book were made on the basis of the instructions issued by his father and that he belonged to scheduled caste community. Thereafter, the scrutiny committee issued Ext.P13 order accepting the report of the KIRTADS and in the light of the finding that the petitioner does not belong to SC (Chakkiliyan community),the following orders were issued: “1. Sri. K.Remesan, Head Constable No.1957 (Rtd), Kannur Police Station (Padmavilasam, Chovva, Keezhalloor, Kannur) and his family belong to Perumkollan (OBC) Community and not to Scheduled Caste Chakkiliyan Community. 2. If any of the members of his family enjoyed any benefits intended for Scheduled Castes, that should be and recovered and further enjoyment of such benefits stopped. 3. The caste name of the members of his family entered in records as Scheduled Caste Chakkiliyan will be got corrected as Perumkollan (OBC). 4. The Revenue Authorities will not issue Scheduled Castes community certificates to the families of the Claimant hereinafter.” 3. On the basis of Ext.P13 order, the Government issued Ext.P14 order on 6.11.2009 rejecting the SC claim of the petitioner and declaring that the petitioner and the members of his family do not belong to SC Chakkiliyan community but belong to Perumkollan (OBC). On the basis of Ext.P13 order, the Government issued Ext.P14 order on 6.11.2009 rejecting the SC claim of the petitioner and declaring that the petitioner and the members of his family do not belong to SC Chakkiliyan community but belong to Perumkollan (OBC). It was also ordered that none of the members of the family shall be eligible for any of the benefits exclusively intended for members of Scheduled Caste. If any of them availed the benefits meant for members of the Scheduled Caste, all such benefits shall be stopped; in case any of the records in respect of the family members show their caste name as SC (Chakkiliyan) it has to be got corrected. Further it was ordered that all Scheduled Caste certificates secured by them shall be treated as cancelled. The Writ Petition was filed at that stage. 4. The respondents filed a counter affidavit stating that based on the Anthropological enquiry conducted by KIRTADS and the genealogical report submitted by it, after taking evidence with opportunity to the petitioner, it was found that the petitioner was born and brought up as a member of Perumkollan community. In the school records, the caste name was shown as Parisa Perumkollan which is a community included in OBC list. They were never treated as untouchables; at the same time Chakkiliyans maintained a lower position in the social hierarchy; they are migrants from Telugu or Kannada speaking areas; on account of the partial occupational similarity certain persons belonging to Perumkollan community began to show the caste of their children as Scheduled Caste (Chakkiliyan) community in the school records. The KIRTADS found that the petitioner had styled himself as Scheduled Caste (Chakkiliyan) community in 1960 itself. The scrutiny committee examined the report of KIRTADS with reference to the contentions of the petitioner and accepted the findings of the KIRTADS concluding that the petitioner or his family members belong to Perumkollan community which is included in OBC; the consanguinal and affinal relatives also belonged to the said community; the contention of the petitioner that his father belonged to Scheduled Caste (Chakkiliyan) community was unsustainable; petitioner's parents as well as his siblings were not members of Chakkiliyan -Scheduled Caste community; the petitioner is not entitled to any benefits available to the members of the Scheduled Caste community. It is stated that the petitioner did not produce any evidence to show that his father or grandfather belonged to Chakkiliyan community, despite opportunities given to him. The community certificate he produced is found to be a false one. In the light of the provisions contained in Act 11 of 1996 the petitioner is not entitled to any benefits out of the appointment he got in the reservation quota based on the false certificate. 5. Sri. Ramesh Chander, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner argued that Exts.P13 or P14 orders which were issued only in 2009 can have only prospective effect and therefore the benefits accrued to the petitioner including his terminal benefits cannot be deprived of because he had continued in service since the year 1972 till his retirement on 31.03.2004. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner points out that the petitioner got the employment after producing his SSLC book and the certificate issued by the concerned revenue official in which he was shown to be a member of (Chakkiliyan) a Scheduled Caste community; those certificates were not issued in view of any contribution made by the petitioner and he has not committed any fraudulent act so as to deny him any benefit. It is pointed out that the petitioner has not claimed the benefit of Scheduled Caste community to any of the members of his family. Therefore, it is argued that the service rendered by him is liable to be recognised for granting him pensionary benefits. Relying on the judgments of this Court in W.P(C).No.22501/2009, Prakash v. State of Kerala [ 2002 (2) KLT 580 ] and Anila v. State of Kerala [ 2009 (4) KLT 112 ], etc. the learned Senior counsel argued that in the absence of any finding that the petitioner got employment on the basis of any fraudulent action, he is entitled to all benefits towards the service rendered by him. It was also argued that if at all the findings of the KIRTADS are correct, the same can only have prospective effect and it cannot relate back to the date of appointment of the petitioner. 6. It was also argued that if at all the findings of the KIRTADS are correct, the same can only have prospective effect and it cannot relate back to the date of appointment of the petitioner. 6. On the other hand, the learned Special Government Pleader argued that the jurisdiction of this Court to interfere with the findings of KIRTADS after a full-fledged fact finding enquiry is very limited, relying on the judgments in Madhuri Patil v. Additional Commissioner, Tribal Development: (1994)6 SCC 241 : 1995 KHC 1357, State of Maharashtra v. Milind and Ors: (2001)1 SCC 4 : 2001 KHC 1312. He argued that intention to act fraudulently is not the criteria to deprive the benefit of Scheduled Caste community in respect of a person, who is found to be one not belonging to Scheduled Caste community, relying on the judgment in Chairman and Managing Director FCI & Ors. v. Jagdish Balaram Bahira & Ors: (2017)8 SCC 670 . It is pointed out that the petitioner, who got appointment enjoying the benefit of reservation available to SC community when he belonged to OBC, the said action would amount to a fraud on the constitution, as an eligible member of Scheduled Caste community lost those benefits he enjoyed. 7. I have considered the contentions raised by both sides. Exts.P13 and P14 orders are issued on the basis of the findings of KIRTADS. Explaining the genealogical map of the family of the petitioner, the KIRTADS found that the paternal grandfather as well as grandmother and the maternal grandfather and grandmother of the petitioner belonged to Perumkollan community. Apart from that his father as well as his siblings and his mother also belonged to Perumkollan community. Under Section 9(3) of Act 11 of 1996, the report of the KIRTADS-the expert agency, shall be conclusive proof for or against the Scheduled caste claim of the person unless found otherwise by the scrutiny committee. Section 10 provides that the burden of proof that one belongs to Scheduled caste or Scheduled Tribe community is on the claimant in any enquiry conducted by the expert agency or the scrutiny committee or in any trial under the Act. The petitioner is not seen to have made any attempt to substantiate his claim that he belongs to a Scheduled Caste community. The petitioner is not seen to have made any attempt to substantiate his claim that he belongs to a Scheduled Caste community. It is seen that the proceedings resulting in Ext.P11 were conducted affording sufficient opportunity to the petitioner to adduce evidence in support of his claim. The findings of KIRTADS are accepted by the scrutiny committee in Ext.P13 proceedings after hearing the petitioner. In Ext.P11 it was stated that the anthropological investigation conducted by the KIRTADS found that a section of Perumkollans from South Malabar migrated to North Malabar and settled in Tellicherry in Kannur and they started working as leather workers. It is stated that the immigrant Scheduled Caste Chakkiliyans from other States were also engaged in leather works; but the origin and culture of the two communities are historically and socially distinct. The Chakkiliyans tanned the leather and made shoes; whereas Perumkollans purchased tanned leather and made leather goods using it. It is stated that because of the partial occupational similarity the Perumkollans started to admitting their children in Schools as members of Chakkiliyan Scheduled caste community and the revenue officials were unable to distinguish them. The KIRTADS found that the claimants styled themselves as Scheduled Caste Chakkiliyans in the 1960s. It is further stated that from the genealogical study it was found that the petitioner was born and brought up in the Perumkollan community; all his consanguinal and affinal relatives were found to be members of Perumkollan community. On the basis of documents it was further found that the petitioner as well as his siblings belong to Pallisa Perumkollan community and thereafter arrived at the finding that the petitioner does not belong to SC community and that he is only a member of OBC. Even though the petitioner claimed that his father is an immigrant though he married from Perumkollan community, no evidence is seen produced by the petitioner in support of the claim. In Ext.P12 the petitioner admits that he and his siblings were admitted in School showing the community as Perumkollan because it was before the formation of the Kerala State when benefit of reservation was not available and therefore the community of their mother was shown as their community. In Ext.P12 the petitioner admits that he and his siblings were admitted in School showing the community as Perumkollan because it was before the formation of the Kerala State when benefit of reservation was not available and therefore the community of their mother was shown as their community. He stated that after benefit of reservation became admissible to SC community, their father submitted application to alter their community from Perumkollan to Chakkiliyan (SC) and the revenue authorities granted the same and school records were corrected accordingly, showing their community as Chakkiliyan(SC). Though the petitioner has claimed that the finding of KIRTADS is without conducting any investigation and without any material, the petitioner has not produced any material to show that he belongs to SC community. The scrutiny committee has considered his contention that his father was a migrant from Tamil Nadu before partition and belonged to Chakkiliyan (SC); but based on the report of the KIRTADS the scrutiny committee found that his paternal grandfather Imbichi hailed from Chovva in Kannur District; his father Kunhiraman and his siblings also belonged to and brought up as Perumkollan community. It was found that the grandfather of the petitioner and his family members had migrated from Kannur to Kozhikode. It was also found that he was born and brought up as belonging to Perumkollan community. The entries made in the SSLC book and the community certificate issued to him as one belonging to Chakkiliyan community are found false by the statutory agency and authority. In the said circumstances, this Court is not expected to conduct any rowing enquiry and to arrive at a different finding. 8. As rightly pointed out by the Learned Special Government Pleader relying on the judgments in Madhuri Patil V. Commr, Tribal Development: (1994)6 SCC 241 , the role of this Court is to see whether the Committee has considered all the relevant materials placed before it and this Court is not expected to reverse the finding even if another view is possible. Even in the judgments relied on by the petitioner, the findings arrived at by the scrutiny committee under Section 11 of the Act 11 of 1996, were not interfered with by this Court. Even in the judgments relied on by the petitioner, the findings arrived at by the scrutiny committee under Section 11 of the Act 11 of 1996, were not interfered with by this Court. In this view of the matter, the contention of the petitioner that his father belonged to SC community cannot be accepted and the findings in Ext.P11 order and conclusion arrived at in Ext.P11 order with respect to the caste status of the petitioner are not liable to be interfered with. 9. Therefore, the only question which remains to be examined is whether the petitioner is entitled to the benefits he enjoyed on his appointment as Police Constable in a vacancy which was available for Scheduled Caste community. The petitioner got appointment in a special recruitment conducted for SC/ST. He continued in service on the basis of orders passed by this Court from time to time. He retired from service even before the investigation by KIRTAD was over. In order to examine the entitlement if any of the petitioner for any of the terminal benefits it is necessary to have a look at the following provisions contained in the Kerala (Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes) Regulation of Issue of Community Certificates Act 1996: “Section 9(2): The report of the Expert Agency shall be conclusive proof for or against the Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes claim, as the case may be, of the person reported upon, unless found contrary by the Scrutiny Committee, after due procedure. Section 10: Where an application is made to the competent authority under section 4 for the issue of a community certificate in respect of a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe or in any enquiry conducted by the Competent Authority, the Expert Agency, or the Scrutiny Committee or in an y trial or offence under this Act, the burden of proving that he belongs to such Caste or Tribe shall be on the claimant. Section 11: Cancellation of false Community Certificate.--(1) Where, before or after the commencement of this Act, a person not belonging to any of the Scheduled Castes or the Scheduled Tribes has obtained a false Community Certificate to the effect that either himself or his children belongs or belong to such Caste or the Tribe, the Scrutiny Committee may either suo motu or on a written complaint or report by any person or authority, call for the records and enquire into the correctness of such certificate and if it is of the opinion that the certificate was obtained fraudulently, it shall, by order, cancel the certificate after giving the person concerned an opportunity of making a representation, if any. (2) The powers of the nature referred to in sub-section (1) may also be exercised by the Government. (3) The Scrutiny Committee while performing its functions for verification and cancellation of community certificates shall follow such procedure as may be prescribed. (4) An order passed by the Scrutiny Committee shall be final and conclusive. No suit or appeal shall lie against the order passed by the Scrutiny Committee." “16. Benefits secured on the basis of false community certificate to be withdrawn.— (1) Whoever not being a person belonging to any of the Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes secures admission in any educational institution against a seat reserved for such castes, tribes or classes, or secures any appointment in the Government, Government Undertakings, local authority or in any other company or corporation, owned or controlled by the Government or in any aided institution against a post reserved for such castes, or the tribes producing a false community certificate shall, on cancellation of the false community certificate, be removed by cancelling the irregular admission in the concerned educational institution, or as the case may be, removed from the said service forthwith and any other benefits enjoyed by him as aforesaid shall be withdrawn forthwith. (2) Any amount paid to such person by the Government or any other agency by way of scholarship, grant, stipend or any other financial benefit shall be recovered as if it is an arrear of public revenue due on land. (2) Any amount paid to such person by the Government or any other agency by way of scholarship, grant, stipend or any other financial benefit shall be recovered as if it is an arrear of public revenue due on land. (3) Any degree, diploma or any other educational qualification acquired by such person after securing admission in any educational institution on the basis of a false community certificate shall also stand cancelled, on cancellation of the community certificate obtained by him. (4) The Competent Authority or the State Government may also order appropriate measures to prevent such person from further enjoying the benefits of the Scheduled Castes or the Scheduled Tribes, including substitution of the real caste name of such person in the public records, f or the false Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe name. (5) Whoever not being a person belonging to any of the Scheduled Castes or the Scheduled Tribes secures and benefit reserved for Scheduled Castes or the Scheduled Tribes other than those mentioned in section 17 by producing a false Community Certificate shall on conviction, be punishable with rigorous imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than six months but which may extent up to two years and with fine which shall not be less than one thousand rupees but which may extent upto five thousand rupees: Provided that the court may, for adequate and special reasons to be reordered in the judgment, impose a sentence of imprisonment for a lesser term or fine.” 10. The learned Senior Counsel placed much reliance on the judgment dated 28.01.2019 of a learned Single Judge in W.P.(C).No.22501 of 2009 and argued that the petitioner cannot be denied his terminal benefits. Though the findings of the KIRTADS as well as the scrutiny committee were upheld to the effect that the petitioners do not belong to Boyan -a SC community; but to Odde Naickan-OBC, the 1st petitioner therein had continued in service based on the interim order till his retirement as Assistant General Manager in the Reserve Bank of India. Though the findings of the KIRTADS as well as the scrutiny committee were upheld to the effect that the petitioners do not belong to Boyan -a SC community; but to Odde Naickan-OBC, the 1st petitioner therein had continued in service based on the interim order till his retirement as Assistant General Manager in the Reserve Bank of India. Relying on the judgment in Prakash V State of Kerala:: 2002(2) KLT 580 and the judgment in Anila V State of Kerala: 2009(4)KLT 112, it was held that the authorities did not have a case that the petitioner had committed any fraud by submitting a false caste certificate for his employment and that there was no evidence of fraud or that the petitioner had any knowledge as to his ineligibility to claim the benefit and therefore no purpose would be served by cancelling his appointment. Therefore, even while upholding the findings of the scrutiny committee this Court directed grant of terminal benefits to him. 11. But it is relevant to note that the judgment in Prakash's case (supra) where a learned Single Judge held that the caste certificate can be cancelled only if the person is found to have committed fraud and that production of false certificate alone would not invite any action was held not good law by a Division Bench of this Court in the judgment in Managing Director, State Bank of Travancore, Thiruvananthapuram v. K. G. Viswanathan and Others: 2016 KHC 569 : ILR 2016(2) Ker 52. The judgment in Anila's case (supra) was also distinguished in the light of circumstances which were factually different. In Anila's case there was a judgment declaring that their mother belonged to Mala Araya-ST community. It was also ordered that her children would also get the benefit of the declaration. The Revenue officials had issued certificates based on that judgment. Even though the scrutiny committee thereafter found that the mother actually belonged to Araya Community which is an OBC and was not eligible for the benefit available to ST community, this Court found that the said finding can only have prospective effect, noticing that they obtained employment based on certificates issued on the basis of directions from this Court. 12. In the judgment in K.G.Viswanathan' case (supra), Viswanathan belonged to Bakuda community which is a Scheduled Caste. 12. In the judgment in K.G.Viswanathan' case (supra), Viswanathan belonged to Bakuda community which is a Scheduled Caste. At the time of admission in the school, entry made in the admission register was that he belonged to Mala Araya-a Scheduled Tribe community. KIRTADS found that the respondent and his siblings belong to SC community and they secured employment as ST candidates. In the enquiry they admitted that they belonged to SC community and stated that the entries were made at the instance of Christian missionaries and that they were not responsible for the same. The State Government cancelled the community certificate and directed to take action against the petitioner and others and the Bank thereupon terminated his services and ordered that he would not be eligible for terminal benefits. The learned Single Judge set aside the proceedings relying on the judgments in Prakash's case and Anila's case. The Division Bench held that the judgment in Prakash's case was not good law, after discussing various judgments of the Apex Court including that in R.Viswanatha Pillai v. State of Kerala. It was held as follows: “13. xxxxxx Even assuming for the sake of argument that the entry in the SSLC certificate was not on account of their deliberate act, still having known about their caste status, if a wrong representation is made and an employment is secured, which is reserved for Scheduled Tribe community, the same is nothing but fraud. This aspect of the matter was completely ignored by the learned Single Judge and therefore the finding in that aspect is perverse and is liable to be set aside. Xxxxx 16. As held by the Apex Court in the judgments cited above, especially R.Viswanatha Pillai (supra), Avinash D. Mandivikar (supra) and Suresh Ramkrishna Burde (supra), the appointment based on a caste certificate which is not genuine is void and non est and therefore no further enquiry is required in the matter.” 13. In the present case, the petitioner has admitted that originally the community of the petitioner and his siblings was given in the school register as Parisaperumkollan. In Ext.P12 representation he stated that his father got the entry corrected in the school records as Chakkiliyan, when it came to his notice that they were eligible for benefits of reservation, after the formation of the State of Kerala. In Ext.P12 representation he stated that his father got the entry corrected in the school records as Chakkiliyan, when it came to his notice that they were eligible for benefits of reservation, after the formation of the State of Kerala. The contention of the petitioner was that he or his siblings were not responsible for such an incident which occurred when they were only 5-6 years of age. According to him before the formation of the State, benefit of reservation to scheduled caste members were not available; it was corrected after the formation of the State of Kerala, that too, without any involvement of the petitioner in it. The petitioner claimed that the conclusions are arrived at without any evidence and, at any rate, there is no case for anybody that he committed any fraud and therefore when he has continued in service all these years till he attained the age of superannuation, no purpose would be served by cancelling his community certificate and he cannot be deprived of his service benefits. 14. In R. Vishwanatha Pillai v. State of Kerala: (2004) 2 SCC 105 the Apex Court, while considering a similar case challenging the orders passed by the scrutiny committee rejecting the claim of the petitioner as to Scheduled Caste status and consequential termination of his services and sought for directions to respondents for payment of terminal benefits pointing out that he retired from service after rendering 27 years' service, held as follows: “15. This apart, the appellant obtained the appointment in the service on the basis that he belonged to a Scheduled Caste community. When it was found by the Scrutiny Committee that he did not belong to the Scheduled Caste community, then the very basis of his appointment was taken away. His appointment was no appointment in the eye of the law. He cannot claim a right to the post as he had usurped the post meant for a reserved candidate by playing a fraud and producing a false caste certificate. Unless the appellant can lay a claim to the post on the basis of his appointment he cannot claim the constitutional guarantee given under Article 311 of the Constitution. As he had obtained the appointment on the basis of a false caste certificate he cannot be considered to be a person who holds a post within the meaning of Article 311 of the Constitution of India. As he had obtained the appointment on the basis of a false caste certificate he cannot be considered to be a person who holds a post within the meaning of Article 311 of the Constitution of India. Finding recorded by the Scrutiny Committee that the appellant got the appointment on the basis of a false caste certificate has become final. The position, therefore, is that the appellant has usurped the post which should have gone to a member of the Scheduled Castes. In view of the finding recorded by the Scrutiny Committee and upheld up to this Court, he has disqualified himself to hold the post. The appointment was void from its inception. It cannot be said that the said void appointment would enable the appellant to claim that he was holding a civil post within the meaning of Article 311 of the Constitution of India. As the appellant had obtained the appointment by playing a fraud, he cannot be allowed to take advantage of his own fraud in entering the service and claim that he was holder of the post entitled to be dealt with in terms of Article 311 of the Constitution of India or the Rules framed thereunder. Where an appointment in a service has been acquired by practising fraud or deceit, such an appointment is no appointment in law, in service and in such a situation Article 311 of the Constitution is not attracted at all. Xxxxx 19. xxxx The appellant obtained the appointment against a post meant for a reserved candidate by producing a false caste certificate and by playing a fraud. His appointment to the post was void and non est in the eye of the law. The right to salary or pension after retirement flows from a valid and legal appointment. The consequential right of pension and monetary benefits can be given only if the appointment was valid and legal. Such benefits cannot be given in a case where the appointment was found to have been obtained fraudulently and rested on a false caste certificate. A person who entered the service by producing a false caste certificate and obtained appointment for the post meant for a Scheduled Caste, thus depriving a genuine Scheduled Caste candidate of appointment to that post, does not deserve any sympathy or indulgence of this Court. A person who seeks equity must come with clean hands. A person who entered the service by producing a false caste certificate and obtained appointment for the post meant for a Scheduled Caste, thus depriving a genuine Scheduled Caste candidate of appointment to that post, does not deserve any sympathy or indulgence of this Court. A person who seeks equity must come with clean hands. He, who comes to the court with false claims, cannot plead equity nor would the court be justified to exercise equity jurisdiction in his favour. A person who seeks equity must act in a fair and equitable manner. Equity jurisdiction cannot be exercised in the case of a person who got the appointment on the basis of a false caste certificate by playing a fraud. No sympathy and equitable consideration can come to his rescue. We are of the view that equity or compassion cannot be allowed to bend the arms of law in a case where an individual acquired a status by practising fraud.” 15. The main contention of the learned Senior Counsel was that the petitioner did not have any dishonest intention to commit fraud and the respondents do not have any such case and therefore he is entitled to the benefit of service rendered by him. In this context it is relevant to note the judgments of the Apex Court in Kavita Solunke v. State of Maharashtra: (2012)8 SCC 430 and thereafter in Shalini v. New English High School Assn: (2013)16 SCC 526 where it was held that a finding as to dishonest intention was necessary to withdraw the benefits received on account of the employment even after the invalidation of community certificate, was overruled by a 3 judge bench of the Apex Court in Food Corporation of India v. Jagdish Balaram Bahira: (2017) 8 SCC 670 . In para 52 it was held as follows: “52. xxxxxxxxxxx Section 10 provides for the withdrawal of benefits secured when a caste certificate is concerned for its falsity. Falsity is adjudicated upon when an order of cancellation is passed under Section 7. Once a caste certificate is cancelled by the Scrutiny Committee under Section 7, the individual affected by the order has a remedy to challenge its cancellation before the High Court under Article 226. Falsity is adjudicated upon when an order of cancellation is passed under Section 7. Once a caste certificate is cancelled by the Scrutiny Committee under Section 7, the individual affected by the order has a remedy to challenge its cancellation before the High Court under Article 226. If the challenge fails or if the challenge is given up, and the only relief sought is of the protection of service, or of the admission to the course, the grant of such protective relief simpliciter would be impermissible. The withdrawal of the benefit under Section 10 follows an order of cancellation under Section 7. Once the conditions for cancellation are fulfilled and an order of cancellation is passed under Section 7, withdrawal of all benefits which have accrued on the basis of the claim (which stands invalidated) cannot be opposed on a theory that there was an absence of dishonest intent.” 16. The provisions contained in the Maharashtra Act 23 of 2001 and those in the Kerala (Scheduled castes and Scheduled Tribes) Regulation of issue of Community Certificates Act (Act 11 of 1996) are in pari materia. Provisions contained in Section 10 of the Maharashtra Act are more or less similar to the provisions contained in Section 16 of the Kerala Act. Section 10 of the Maharashtra Act read as follows: “10. Benefits secured on the basis of false caste certificate to be withdrawn.—(1) Whoever not being a person belonging to any of the Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, De-notified Tribes (Vimukta Jatis), Nomadic Tribes, Other Backward Classes or Special Backward Category secures admission in any educational institution against a seat reserved for such castes, tribes or classes, or secures any appointment in the Government, local authority or in any other company or corporation, owned or controlled by the Government or in any Government-aided institution or cooperative society against a post reserved for such castes, tribes or classes by producing a false caste certificate shall, on cancellation of the caste certificate by the Scrutiny Committee, be liable to be debarred from the educational institution concerned, or as the case may be, discharged from the said employment forthwith and any other benefits enjoyed or derived by virtue of such admission or appointment by such person as aforesaid shall be withdrawn forthwith. (2) Any amount paid to such person by the Government or any other agency by way of scholarship, grant, allowance or other financial benefit shall be recovered from such person as arrears of land revenue. (3) Notwithstanding anything contained in any Act for the time being in force, any degree, diploma or any other educational qualification acquired by such person after securing admission in any educational institution on the basis of a caste certificate which is subsequently proved to be false shall also stand cancelled, on cancellation of such caste certificate, by the Scrutiny Committee. (4) Notwithstanding anything contained in any law for the time being in force, a person shall be disqualified for being a member of any statutory body if he has contested the election for local authority, cooperative society or any statutory body on the seat reserved for any of the Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, De-notified Tribes (Vimukta Jatis), Nomadic Tribes, Other Backward Classes or Special Backward Category by procuring a false caste certificate as belonging to such caste, tribe or class on such false caste certificate being cancelled by the Scrutiny Committee, and any benefits obtained by such person shall be recoverable as arrears of land revenue and the election of such person shall be deemed to have been terminated retrospectively. While considering the challenge against the judgment of the Full Bench of the Bombay High Court, which followed the judgments in Kavitha Salanke's case (supra) and in Salini's case (supra) the Apex Court in the judgment in FCI's case after interpreting the provisions contained in the Maharashtra Act 23 of 2001 and after analysing almost all the judgments hitherto deprecated practice of granting equitable reliefs by the courts contrary to the legislative intent. It was held as follows: “51. Since the decision of the Bench of three Judges in R. Vishwanatha Pillai v. State of Kerala: (2004) 2 SCC 105 the position of law which has been laid down by this Court is that where an appointment to a post or admission to an educational institution is made against a vacancy which is reserved for a Scheduled Caste or Tribe or a socially and educationally backward class, the invalidation of the claim of the candidate would result in the appointment or, as the case may be, the admission being void and non est. This principle has been followed by another judgment of three Judges in Union of India V Dattatray: (2008) 4 SCC 612 . The same position has been propounded by a two-Judge Bench in Bank of India v. Avinash D. Mandivikar: (2005)7SCC 690. The formal termination of an employment or the withdrawal of admission is a necessary consequence which flows out of the invalidation of the caste or tribe claim. The only exception to this principle consists of those cases where, in exercise of the power conferred by Article 142, the Court considered it appropriate and proper to protect the admission which was granted or, as the case may be, the appointment to the post. xxxxxxxxxxxsection “66. xxxx When a candidate is found to have put forth a false claim of belonging to a designated caste, tribe or class for whom a benefit is reserved, it would be a negation of the rule of law to exercise the jurisdiction under Article 142 to protect that individual. Societal good lies in ensuring probity. That is the only manner in which the sanctity of the system can be preserved. The legal system cannot be seen as an avenue to support those who make untrue claims to belong to a caste or tribe or socially and educationally backward class. These benefits are provided only to designated castes, tribes or classes in accordance with the constitutional scheme and cannot be usurped by those who do not belong to them. The credibility not merely of the legal system but also of the judicial process will be eroded if such claims are protected in exercise of the constitutional power conferred by Article 142 despite the State law. xxxxxxxxxxx section As a matter of principle, in the exercise of its constitutional jurisdiction, the court must weigh against an interpretation which will protect unjust claims over the just, fraud over legality and expediency over principle. As the nation evolves, the role of the court must be as an institution which abides by constitutional principle, enforces the rule of law and reaffirms the belief that claims based upon fraud, expediency and subterfuge will not be recognised. Once these parameters are established with a clear judicial formulation, individual cases should pose no problem. As the nation evolves, the role of the court must be as an institution which abides by constitutional principle, enforces the rule of law and reaffirms the belief that claims based upon fraud, expediency and subterfuge will not be recognised. Once these parameters are established with a clear judicial formulation, individual cases should pose no problem. Usurpation of constitutional benefits by persons who are not entitled to them must be answered by the court in the only way permissible for an institution which has to uphold the rule of law. Unless the courts were to do so, it would leave open a path of incentives for claims based on fraud to survive legal gambits and the creativity of the disingenuous. The following declarations in para 69 of the judgment are relevant for the purpose of this case 69. For these reasons, we hold and declare that: 69.1. The directions which were issued by the Constitution Bench of this Court in para 38 of the decision in Milind were in pursuance of the powers vested in this Court under Article 142 of the Constitution; 69.2. xxxxxxxxxxx 69.3. The decisions of this Court in R. Vishwanatha Pillai and in Dattatray which were rendered by Benches of three Judges laid down the principle of law that where a benefit is secured by an individual-such as an appointment to a post or admission to an educational institution—on the basis that the candidate belongs to a reserved category for which the benefit is reserved, the invalidation of the caste or tribe claim upon verification would result in the appointment or, as the case may be, the admission being rendered void or non est. 69.4. The exception to the above doctrine was in those cases where this Court exercised its power under Article 142 of the Constitution to render complete justice; 69.5. By Maharashtra Act 23 of 2001 there is a legislative codification of the broad principles enunciated in Madhuri Patil. The legislation provides a statutory framework for regulating the issuance of caste certificates (Section 4); constitution of Scrutiny Committees for verification of claims (Section 6); submission of applications for verification of caste certificates [Sections 6(2) and 6(3)]; cancellation of caste certificates (Section 7); burden of proof (Section 8); withdrawal of benefits obtained upon the invalidation of the claim (Section 10); and initiation of prosecution (Section 11), amongst other things; 69.6. The power conferred by Section 7 upon the Scrutiny Committee to verify a claim is both in respect of caste certificates issued prior to and subsequent to the enforcement of the Act on 18-10-2001. Finality does not attach to a caste certificate (or to the claim to receive benefits) where the claim of the individual to belong to a reserved caste, tribe or class is yet to be verified by the Scrutiny Committee; 69.7. Withdrawal of benefits secured on the basis of a caste claim which has been found to be false and is invalidated is a necessary consequence which flows from the invalidation of the caste claim and no issue of retrospectivity would arise; 69.8. The decisions in Kavita Solunke and Shalini of two learned Judges are overruled. Shalini insofar as it stipulates a requirement of a dishonest intent for the application of the provision of Section 10 is, with respect, erroneous and does not reflect the correct position in law; 69.9. Mens rea is an ingredient of the penal provisions contained in Section 11. Section 11 is prospective and would apply in those situations where the act constituting the offence has taken place after the date of its enforcement; 69.10. The judgment of the Full Bench of the Bombay High Court in Arun is manifestly erroneous and is overruled; and 69.11. Though the power of the Supreme Court under Article 142 of the Constitution is a constitutional power vested in the court for rendering complete justice and is a power which is couched in wide terms, the exercise of the jurisdiction must have due regard to legislative mandate, where a law such as Maharashtra Act 23 of 2001 holds the field.” In the light of the aforesaid declaration by the Apex Court, the judgments rendered by this Court in Prakashan's case or Anila's case or in the judgment dated 28.01.2019 in W.P.(c).No.22501 of 2009 cannot have any force and the contentions relying on those judgments are only to be discarded. The contention that the finding can have only prospective effect and that there should be finding as to fraudulent intention is unsustainable and such a construction would be contrary to the legislative intent. Therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to any relief. I do not find any reason to interfere with the orders Exts.P11 or P13. The Writ petition is accordingly dismissed.