# Ramakant v. Union of India & Ors

- **Citation:** (2020) 1 ILRA 1902
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2019-11-15
- **Case number:** Writ-A No. 54270 of 2017
- **Bench:** Suneet Kumar
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/ramakant-v-union-of-india-ors-45080
- **Pages:** 11

## Headnote

A.S.G.I., Sri Rohan Gupta, Sri Shabha Jeet
Singh, Sri Shivam Shukla

A.
Challenging-impugned
orderaffirming-petitioner's dismissal-from the
post of bus conductor-on the groundobtaining appointment on the basis of
forged
caste
certificate-wilfully
&
deliberately-suppressed-real
social
status-caste
certificate-the
very
foundation of appointment-declared to be
false-appointment rendered-void or nonest.

B. Held, once the social status certificate
is declared false by the competent
authority, the appointment would render
void or non est. In that event, the
employer would not be required to
initiate regular departmental proceedings
under the Rules for the reason that the
certificate would bind the disciplinary
authority.
In
such
an
event,
the
delinquent employee can be removed
from service upon a show cause notice.
The disciplinary authority would have no
occasion
to
return
a
finding
in
a
proceeding
to
a
charge.
The
very
foundation on which the services of the
delinquent employee was based upon
being
demolished,
the
consequence
would
be
automatic
removal
from
service. In the instant case, admittedly,
the District Collector being the competent
authority upon verification had certified
that the petitioner does not belong to the
SC
community,
consequently,
the
appointment of the petitioner would
render it void or non est. Even then IIT
Kanpur got conducted a full-fledged
departmental enquiry for imposition of
major penalty in accordance with the
Rules.

Writ Petition dismissed. (E-8)

List of cases cited: -

## Text

1 All. Nitin Pandey & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1903
(2020)1ILR 1902

ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 15.11.2019

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE SUNEET KUMAR, J.

Writ-A No. 54270 of 2017

Ramakant ...Petitioner
Versus
Union of India & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Prem Narayan Rai, Sri Bikash Kumar
Mishra, Sri Himanshu Kumar, Sri Jafar
Naiyar

Counsel for the Respondents:
A.S.G.I., Sri Rohan Gupta, Sri Shabha Jeet
Singh, Sri Shivam Shukla

A.
Challenging-impugned
orderaffirming-petitioner's dismissal-from the
post of bus conductor-on the groundobtaining appointment on the basis of
forged
caste
certificate-wilfully
&
deliberately-suppressed-real
social
status-caste
certificate-the
very
foundation of appointment-declared to be
false-appointment rendered-void or nonest.

B. Held, once the social status certificate
is declared false by the competent
authority, the appointment would render
void or non est. In that event, the
employer would not be required to
initiate regular departmental proceedings
under the Rules for the reason that the
certificate would bind the disciplinary
authority.
In
such
an
event,
the
delinquent employee can be removed
from service upon a show cause notice.
The disciplinary authority would have no
occasion
to
return
a
finding
in
a
proceeding
to
a
charge.
The
very
foundation on which the services of the
delinquent employee was based upon
being
demolished,
the
consequence
would
be
automatic
removal
from
service. In the instant case, admittedly,
the District Collector being the competent
authority upon verification had certified
that the petitioner does not belong to the
SC
community,
consequently,
the
appointment of the petitioner would
render it void or non est. Even then IIT
Kanpur got conducted a full-fledged
departmental enquiry for imposition of
major penalty in accordance with the
Rules.

Writ Petition dismissed. (E-8)

List of cases cited: -

1.
Kumari
Madhuri
Patil
v.
Additional
Commissioner, Tribal Development

2. R. Vishwanath Pillai v. State of Kerala

(Delivered by Hon'ble Suneet Kumar,J.)

1. Heard Sri Jafar Naiyar, learned
Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Prem
Narayan Rai and Sri Himanshu Kumar,
learned counsels for the petitioner and Sri
Rohan Gupta, learned counsel assisted by
Sri Shivam Shukla, learned counsels for
the respondent.

2. Petitioner, by the instant writ
petition is assailing the order dated 6
November 2017, passed by the second
respondent,
Chairman,
Board
of
Governors, Indian Institute of Technology,
Kanpur1, District Kanpur Nagar, affirming
the order of dismissal dated 20 April 2017,
passed by the third respondent, Director,
IIT Kanpur, District Kanpur Nagar.

3. The facts giving rise to the instant
petition is that petitioner applied for the
post of bus conductor pursuant to
Advertisement No. 24 of 1982, under the
Scheduled Caste (SC) category on the
1904 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
strength of caste/social status certificate
dated 14 July 1978, being member of
'Majhwar'
community.
The
caste
certificate
was
duly
issued by
the
Tehsildar, Tehsil Kalpi, District Jalaun.
Petitioner came to be appointed on the
post of bus conductor on 28 May 1983,
subsequently, was confirmed and made
permanent on 30 March 1988, on the post
of
Bus
Conductor
Grade-II.
On
a
complaint
received
by
IIT
Kanpur,
alleging
that
petitioner
obtained
appointment on a forged caste certificate.
Petitioner belongs to Other Backward
Class (OBC), i.e. caste 'Kewat'. On the
complaint, petitioner was subjected to
notice dated 22 April 2014, calling upon
him to show cause. Petitioner replied to
the show cause notice denying the
allegations levelled against him. The
competent authority of the IIT Kanpur
communicated
with
the
District
Magistrate, Jalaun, to enquire into the
social status of the petitioner. No response
was received, consequently, IIT Kanpur
sought the intervention of the Ministry of
Human
Resources
Development,
Government
of
India.
The
Human
Resources
Department
vide
communication dated 11 March 2015,
requested
the
Chief
Secretary,
Government of Uttar Pradesh, to direct the
District Magistrate, Jalaun, to enquire into
the matter. It appears, thereafter, the
District Magistrate, Jalaun at Orai, vide
communication dated 30 April 2015,
informed IIT Kanpur that petitioner
belongs
to
'Kewat/Mallah/Nishad'
community which is notified as OBC.

4. Petitioner came to be suspended
on 22 June 2015, and was also served the
articles of charge along with imputation of
misconduct and the list of documents and
witnesses in support of the charges. Three
charges were leveled against the petitioner
primarily alleging that petitioner had
obtained appointment under the SC
category, intentionally and deliberately
misrepresenting his caste as ''Majhwar',
whereas, in fact, he belongs to 'Kewat'
caste recognized as OBC notified by the
Government of India. Petitioner filed
written statement denying the charges,
consequently, an enquiry officer came to
be appointed. The IIT Kanpur sought to
prove the charge on the statement of three
witnesses, including, Tehsildar, Tehsil
Kalpi, District Jalaun. The witnesses
appeared and deposed in the presence of
the petitioner, he was allowed to cross
examine them. In defence, petitioner
offered himself as a defence witness and
Sri Munna Lal his cousin. Petitioner
contended before the enquiry officer that
he was born in ''Majhwar' community
which is recognized as SC. In support of
his contention, he submitted copy of the
family register, wherein, it has been shown
that he belongs to hindu ''Majhwar' caste.
Reliance was placed on an order passed by
this Court in a petition being Writ Petition
No. 42794 of 2002 (Smt. Shashi Lata
Versus
Superintending
Engineer
and
others), wherein, the niece of the petitioner
Smt. Shashi Lata was held belonging to
''Majhwar' community, accordingly, on the
directions of this Court she came to be
reinstated. It was further alleged that the
proceedings initiated against the petitioner
is malicious as it has been initiated on the
complaint of the Secretary of the society
against whom petitioner made complaint
for encroaching the land and property
belonging to IIT Kanpur.

5.

The
inquiry
officer
upon
considering the evidences and rival written
contentions noted in the enquiry report
dated 18 April 2016, that the caste
1 All. Ramakant Vs. Union of India & Ors.
1905
certificate of the petitioner was duly
verified from the competent authority i.e.
Tehsildar
Kalpi/District
Magistrate,
District Jalaun. They found that as per
family register (2001-02) the caste of
Munna Lal (D.W.-2) is recorded hindu
''Kewat'. The documents/certificates relied
upon by the petitioner to contend that he
belongs to hindu ''Majhwar' was not found
supported by the entries made in the
family register. A report was submitted by
the Khand Vikash Adhikari, Maheva
(Jalaun), upon verifying the records that
the caste of D.W.-2 is hindu (Kewat). The
Tehsildar, Kalpi, also submitted a report
on reinquiring the matter that the caste of
the petitioner is hindu (Kewat) and not
''Majhwar' as he proclaimed. The order of
the writ court pertaining to Smt. Shashi
Lata was noticed by the inquiry officer.
The order nowhere declares that Smt.
Shashi Lata belongs to hindu (Majhwar)
caste. The order of her reinstatement was
passed
on
pure
technical
ground.
Accordingly, the enquiry officer returned a
finding that the petitioner willfully and
deliberately suppressed his real social
status and obtained appointment against
the post reserved for SC category,
whereas, petitioner, a resident of Village
Gurhakhas, Tehsil Kalpi, District Jalaun,
was fully aware of his caste being hindu
(Kewat). The charges came to be proved.

6. The copy of the enquiry report was
furnished
by
the
third
respondent,
Disciplinary Authority to the petitioner
vide communication dated 16 May 2016.
Petitioner submitted his written objections
on 30 May 2016, inter alia, stating therein
that the caste certificate of the petitioner
issued in 1978 has not been canceled by
the competent Scrutiny Committee as
mandated by the Supreme Court in
Kumari Madhuri Patil v. Additional
Commissioner, Tribal Development2.
The inquiry officer though has noted in the
enquiry report that petitioner had admitted
during
cross
examination
that
the
Tehsildar is competent authority to issue
caste
certificate.
However,
on
the
objection of the petitioner, IIT Kanpur
vide communication dated 13 June 2016,
addressed to the District Magistrate,
Jalaun, sought clarification as to whether
the social status of the petitioner was
verified in accordance with the guidelines
issued by the Supreme Court. The District
Magistrate vide communication dated 19
September 2016, reaffirmed the report of
the Tehsildar, Tehsil Kalpi, contending
therein that the report is strictly in
accordance with the guidelines. Thereafter,
by the impugned order dated 20 April
2017, passed by the third respondent,
Director, IIT Kanpur, District Kanpur
Nagar/Disciplinary Authority, the services
of the petitioner came to be dismissed.
Aggrieved, petitioner preferred an appeal
before the second respondent which was
rejected on 16 November 2017.

7. In the aforementioned back drop,
learned Senior Counsel appearing for the
petitioner submits that the caste certificate
(Majhwar) was issued by the competent district
authority
and
there
was
no
fraud
or
misrepresentation; reliance has been placed on
the extracts of the family register to contend that
petitioner belongs to caste (Majhwar); the caste
certificate till date is intact and has not been
cancelled; the social status of the niece of the
petitioner, namely, Shashi Lata has been held by
this Court being caste ''Majhwar' and not ''Kewat'.
Extract of family register and school leaving
certificate has been placed on record to contend
that the petitioner belongs to caste ''Majhwar'.

8. On specific query, learned counsel
for the petitioner does not dispute that the
1906 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
departmental
proceedings
against
an
employee of IIT Kanpur is governed by
the Statutes framed in exercise of powers
conferred under the Indian Institutes of
Technology Act, 19613. Statute (13)
governs the proceedings. The procedure
prescribed therein was duly complied and
petitioner was given opportunity at every
stage of the proceedings as per the
Rules/Statutes. In other words, there is no
procedural irregularity.

9. Sri Rohan Gupta, learned counsel
appearing for the respondent, submits that
the procedure prescribed under the Statute
read
with
Central
Civil
Services
(Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules,
19654, was duly complied. It is further
submitted that the social status of the
petitioner was duly verified by the District
Magistrate, Jalaun, in terms of the
guidelines ennunciated in Madhuri2 case;
the extract of the documents i.e. family
register, school leaving certificate filed
along with the writ petition are fabricated
and forged documents; social status
certificate of the niece of the petitioner has
not been verified by any authority/forum
including this Court; reliance has been
placed on the report of the Principal, Sri
Thakkar
Bapa
Inter
College,
Hindi
Bhawan,
Kalpi,
(Jalaun),
dated
15
February 2014, to contend that petitioner
was admitted to class VI on 16 July 1966,
his caste in the school register is recorded
''Kewat'. The copy of the extract is duly
certified; copy of the application form
submitted on behalf of the petitioner was
supplied by the Principal of the school; the
documents has been placed on record.
Further, it is urged that the extract of
family register ( 2001-02) records that
petitioner and his family members are
recorded belonging to ''Kewat' community.
The report further certifies that Munna Lal
(D.W.-2), cousin of the petitioner, is
recorded hindu ''Kewat' in the family
register. Further, reliance has been placed
on the revenue record of 1995 pertaining
to transfer of land by Sri Munna Lal
(D.W.-2), wherein, his caste is recorded
''Nishad' under OBC category. The report
of the Collector further records that the
relatives and family members of the
petitioner
have
been
married
into
''Kewat/Mallah/Nishad' community and
not ''Majhwar'. The authorities verified the
documentary evidence, the social status of
relatives and family members of the
petitioner, who are all recorded hindu
''Kewat' and petitioner alone claims
himself belonging to hindu ''Majhwar'.
Reliance has been placed on the office
memorandum dated 10 January 2013,
wherein, the departments of the Central
Government were directed to take action
against the government servants who got
appointment
on
the
basis
of
false
SC/ST/OBC certificates and to initiate
disciplinary proceedings against them;
petitioner till date has not assailed the
communications/report
issued
by
the
District
Magistrate
certifying
that
petitioner belongs to caste ''Kewat' and not
to ''Majhwar' community. It is urged that it
was incumbent upon the petitioner to have
taken remedy before the State Level
Scrutiny Committee by assailing the report
of the Tehsildar/District Magistrate. The
petition is devoid of merit.

10. Rival submission fall for
consideration

11. It is not being disputed by
learned counsel for the petitioner that the
procedure for imposition of major penalty
as contemplated and provided in the Rules
governing the employees of IIT Kanpur
was duly followed. It is further not
1 All. Ramakant Vs. Union of India & Ors.
1907
disputed that the petitioner has not assailed
the communication/report issued by the
District Magistrate certifying that the
petitioner belongs to caste ''Kewat' notified
as OBC. The document placed on record
by the respondents i.e. the extract of
revenue record of D.W.-2, the family
register and the application made on behalf
of the petitioner while taking admission,
records that petitioner belongs to caste
hindu ''Kewat' and not ''Majhwar' as is
being claimed. The Tehsildar, Tehsil
Kalpi, District Jalaun, duly appeared and
was cross examined by the petitioner. On
objection raised by the petitioner that the
procedure for verification of the social
status certificate mandated in Madhuri2
case was not followed, was also rejected
upon District Magistrate reaffirming that
the guidelines for verification of the social
status of the petitioner was duly complied.
The entries in school register, family
register, social status of the relatives of the
petitioner was duly verified, revenue
record entries etc. was also considered.

12. Learned Single Judge of this
Court in Sallu Baj Versus State of U.P.
and others5, wherein, the appointment
was obtained by the petitioner on the S.T.
caste certificate which he otherwise did
not belong, the Court held that the very
basis of the appointment obtained on
misrepresentation and fraud was void ab
initio. The argument of the learned counsel
for the petitioner that petitioner had
applied for the social status certificate
disclosing his caste, and the authorities
had duly issued the certificate, thus, there
was no question of fraud having been
committed by the petitioner was rejected.

13. It is further urged that petitioner
had put in more than three decades of
service and at the fag end of his career a
lesser punishment would have sufficed
instead of dismissing the petitioner.

14. It is common knowledge that in
matters pertaining to employment, when
information with regard to the antecedents
of a candidate is called for, it is intended to
verify and cross-check the suitability of
the candidate for the job. If the candidate
indulges in suppressio veri and suggestio
falsi, he proves himself unfit to be
employed.
In
the
instant
case,
by
producing
a
forged
and
fabricated
certificate on misrepresentation not only
did the petitioner secure a job but he was
also responsible in depriving a genuine
candidate to the post. The appointment of
the petitioner is void and non est in the
eyes of law. The punishment that has been
awarded to the petitioner befits the
misconduct committed by him, thus, any
modification with respect to the quantum
of punishment will only amount misplaced
sympathy and perpetuate the fraud.

15. A similar plea about long years
of service rendered on forged document
was considered by the Supreme Court in
R. Vishwanath Pillai v. State of Kerala
and
others6,
it
was
held
to
be
inconsequential. In paragraph 21, it was
observed:

"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 law. The right to
salary or pension after retirement flow
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
1908 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
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 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.
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 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 case where the
individual acquired a status by practising
fraud."

16. The argument of the learned
counsel for the petitioner for modification
of the quantum of punishment lacks merit,
accordingly, rejected.

17. It is, thereafter, vehemently urged on
behalf of the petitioner that in view of dictum
of law laid down by the Supreme court in the
decisions reported as Kumari Madhuri Patil
v
Additional
Commissioner,
Tribal
Development7, Director of Tribal Welfare,
Government of AP v Laveti Giri8,
Lillykutty v Scrutiny Committee, SC &
ST& Ors9 and Union of India v
Dattatray10, the only authority which is
empowered under law to examine genuineness
of the caste certificate is Caste Scrutiny
Committee, it is therefore submitted that the
inquiry officer committed jurisdictional error
in returning a finding upon the validity of the
caste certificate submitted by the petitioner.

18. The question therefore arises is
as
to
whether
the
enquiry
officer
committed jurisdictional error in returning
finding upon the social status of the
petitioner.

19. In Madhuri2 case following
guidelines were laid down by Supreme
Court regarding procedure for issuance,
scrutiny and approval of social status
certificates:-

"13. The admission wrongly
gained or appointment wrongly obtained
on the basis of false social status
certificate necessarily has the effect of
depriving the genuine Scheduled Castes or
Scheduled Tribes or OBC candidates as
enjoined in the Constitution of the benefits
conferred on them by the Constitution. The
genuine candidates are also denied
admission to educational institutions or
appointments to office or posts under a
State for want of social status certificate.
The ineligible or spurious persons who
falsely gained entry resort to dilatory
tactics and create hurdles in completion of
the inquiries by the Scrutiny Committee. It
is true that the applications for admission
to educational institutions are generally
made by a parent, since on that date many
a time the student may be a minor. It is the
parent or the guardian who may play
fraud claiming false status certificate. It is,
therefore, necessary that the certificates
issued are scrutinised at the earliest and
with utmost expedition and promptitude.
For that purpose, it is necessary to
streamline the procedure for the issuance
of social status certificates, their scrutiny
and their approval, which may be the
following:

1. The application for grant of
social status certificate shall be made to
the Revenue Sub- Divisional Officer and
Deputy Collector or Deputy Commissioner
and the certificate shall be issued by such
1 All. Ramakant Vs. Union of India & Ors.
1909
officer rather than at the Officer, Taluk or
Mandal level.

2. The parent, guardian or the
candidate, as the case may be, shall file an
affidavit duly sworn and attested by a
competent
gazetted
officer
or
non-
gazetted officer with particulars of castes
and sub- castes, tribe, tribal community,
parts or groups of tribes or tribal
communities, the place from which he
originally hails from and other particulars
as may be prescribed by the Directorate
concerned.

3. Application for verification of
the caste certificate by the Scrutiny
Committee shall be filed at least six
months
in
advance
before
seeking
admission into educational institution or
an appointment to a post.

4. All the State Governments
shall constitute a Committee of three
officers, namely, (I) an Additional or Joint
Secretary or any officer higher in rank of
the Director of the department concerned,
(II) the Director, Social Welfare/Tribal
Welfare/Backward Class Welfare, as the
case may be, and (III) in the case of
Scheduled Castes another officer who has
intimate knowledge in the verification and
issuance of the social status certificates. In
the case of the Scheduled Tribes, the
Research
Officer
who
has
intimate
knowledge in identifying the tribes, tribal
communities, parts of or groups of tribes
or tribal communities.

5.
Each
Directorate
should
constitute a vigilance cell consisting of
Senior Deputy Superintendent of Police in
over-all charge and such number of Police
Inspectors to investigate into the social
status claims. The Inspector would go to
the local place of residence and original
place from which the candidate hails and
usually resides or in case of migration to
the town or city, the place from which he
originally hailed from. The vigilance
officer should personally verify and collect
all the facts of the social status claimed by
the candidate or the parent or guardian,
as the case may be. He should also
examine
the
school
records,
birth
registration, if any. He should also
examine the parent, guardian or the
candidate in relation to their caste etc. or
such other persons who have knowledge of
the social status of the candidate and then
submit a report to the Directorate together
with all particulars as envisaged in the pro
forma, in particular, of the Scheduled
Tribes
relating
to
their
peculiar
anthropological and ethnological traits,
deity, rituals, customs, mode of marriage,
death ceremonies, method of burial of
dead bodies etc. by the castes or tribes or
tribal communities concerned etc.

6. The Director concerned, on
receipt of the report from the vigilance
officer if he found the claim for social
status to be "not genuine" or ,,doubtful‟ or
spurious or falsely or wrongly claimed, the
Director concerned should issue showcause notice supplying a copy of the report
of the vigilance officer to the candidate by
a registered post with acknowledgement
due or through the head of the educational
institution
concerned
in
which
the
candidate is studying or employed. The
notice
should
indicate
that
the
representation or reply, if any, would be
made within two weeks from the date of
the receipt of the notice and in no case on
request not more than 30 days from the
date of the receiptof the notice. In case, the
candidate seeks for an opportunity of
hearing and claims an inquiry to be made
in that behalf, the Director on receipt of
such representation/reply shall convene
the committee and the Joint/Additional
Secretary as Chairperson who shall give
reasonable
opportunity
to
the
1910 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
candidate/parent/guardian to adduce all
evidence in support of their claim. A
public notice by beat of drum or any other
convenient mode may be published in the
village or locality and if any person or
association opposes such a claim, an
opportunity to adduce evidence may be
given
to
him/it.
After
giving
such
opportunity either in person or through
counsel, the Committee may make such
inquiry as it deems expedient and consider
the claims vis-à-vis the objections raised
by the candidate or opponent and pass an
appropriate order with brief reasons in
support thereof.

7. In case the report is in favour
of the candidate and found to be genuine
and true, no further action need be taken
except where the report or the particulars
given are procured or found to be false or
fraudulently obtained and in the latter
event the same procedure as is envisaged
in para 6 be followed.

8. Notice contemplated in para 6
should be issued to the parents/guardian
also in case candidate is minor to appear
before the Committee with all evidence in
his or their support of the claim for the
social status certificates.

9.
The
inquiry
should
be
completed as expeditiously as possible
preferably by day-to-day proceedings
within such period not exceeding two
months. If after inquiry, the Caste Scrutiny
Committee finds the claim to be false or
spurious, they should pass an order
cancelling the certificate issued and
confiscate
the
same.
It
should
communicate within one month from the
date of the conclusion of the proceedings
the
result
of
enquiry
to
the
parent/guardian and the applicant.

10. In case of any delay in
finalising the proceedings, and in the
meanwhile the last date for admission into
an educational institution or appointment
to an officer post, is getting expired, the
candidate be admitted by the Principal or
such other authority competent in that
behalf or appointed on the basis of the
social status certificate already issued or
an
affidavit
duly
sworn
by
theparent/guardian/candidate before the
competent officer or non-official and such
admission or appointment should be only
provisional, subject to the result of the
inquiry by the Scrutiny Committee.

11. The order passed by the
Committee shall be final and conclusive
only subject to the proceedings under
Article 226 of the Constitution.

12. No suit or other proceedings
before any other authority should lie.

13. The High Court would
dispose of these cases as expeditiously as
possible within a period of three months.
In case, as per its procedure, the writ
petition/miscellaneous petition/matter is
disposed of by a Single Judge, then no
further appeal would lie against that order
to the Division Bench but subject to
special leave under Article 227.

14. In case, the certificate
obtained or social status claimed is found
to be false, the parent/guardian/the
candidate
should
be
prosecuted
for
making false claim. If the prosecution ends
in a conviction and sentence of the
accused, it could be regarded as an
offence
involving
moral
turpitude,
disqualification for elective posts or
offices under the State or the Union or
elections to any local body, legislature or
Parliament.

15. As soon as the finding is
recorded by the Scrutiny Committee
holding that the certificate obtained was
false, on its cancellation and confiscation
simultaneously, it should be communicated
to the educational institution concerned or
1 All. Ramakant Vs. Union of India & Ors.
1911
the appointing authority by registered post
with acknowledgement due with a request
to
cancel
the
admission
or
the
appointment. The Principal etc. of the
educational institution responsible for
making the admission or the appointing
authority,
should
cancel
the
admission/appointment
without
any
further notice to the candidate and debar
the candidate from further study or
continue in office in a post."

20. The guidelines was issued
stipulating a fair and just procedure to
shorten the undue delay. The endeavour
was to give effect of the guidelines and
ensure that the constitutional objectives
intended for the benefit and advancement
of
the
genuine
SC/ST/OBC
classes
candidates, as the case may be are not
defeated by unscrupulous persons.

21. From the aforesaid, it is crystal
clear that the only decision which may
have some relevance on the issue in hand
is the decision of Supreme Court in
Madhuri (supra) case. Laveti Giri (supra)
merely reiterates the guidelines laid down
by Supreme Court in Madhuri2 case.
Lillykutty and Dattatray (supra) has no
application whatsoever on the issue in
hand.

22. Having examined the decision of
Madhuri2 case, it cannot be said that
Madhuri case lays down that the Inquiry
Officer would commit an error in returning
a finding upon the social status of the
petitioner for the same was a matter which
exclusively falls in the domain of Caste
Scrutiny Committee. The guidelines issued
in
Madhuri2
case
lays
down
the
procedure to be followed for issuance of
fresh caste certificates or verification of
caste certificates already issued by the
authorities. By no stretch of imagination,
Madhuri case lays down that wherever
the issue of correctness of a caste
certificate comes up in question, no
authority
other
than
Caste
Security
Committee can enquire into the same.

23. In the facts of the instant case, it
is not being disputed by the learned
counsel for the petitioner that the finding
on the social status of the petitioner
returned by the inquiry officer is based
upon the reports submitted by the
competent authority i.e. Tehsildar/District
Magistrate.
The
Tehsildar
(P.W.-3)
appeared as a witness before the enquiry
officer and reiterated the social status of
the petitioner relying upon the reports of
various officers based on documents.

24. In the circumstances, the inquirty
officer committed no jurisdictional error in
returning a finding upon the social status
of the petitioner based on the reports and
certificates of the Collector. On the
contrary, it was incumbent upon the
petitioner
as
per
the
guideines
in
Madhuri2 case to assail the report either
before the State Level Committee or
before this Court in Article 226/227 of the
Constitution of India.

25. Three Judge Bench of the
Supreme Court recently in Chairman and
Managing Director, FCI and others
Versus Jagdish Balaram Bahira and
others11, upon revisiting the law where
the incumbent has obtained benefit of
admissions/appointment based on false
social status certificate held and declared,
inter alia, as follows:

"1. Conclusion

57. For these reasons, we hold
and declare that:-
1912 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

(i) The directions which were issued
by the Constitution Bench of this Court in
paragraph 38 of the decision in Milind (AIR
2001 SC 393) were in pursuance of the powers
vested in this Court under Article 142 of the
Constitution;

(ii) Since the decision of this
Court in Madhuri Patil (AIR 1995 SC 94)
which was rendered on 2 September 1994,
the regime which held the field in
pursuance of those directions envisaged a
detailed procedure for (a) the issuance of
caste
certificates;
(b)
scrutiny
and
verification of caste and tribe claims by
Scrutiny Committees to be constituted by
the State Government; (c) the procedure
for the conduct of investigation into the
authenticity of the claim; (d) Cancellation
and confiscation of the caste certificate
where the claim is found to be false or not
genuine; (e) Withdrawal of benefits in
terms
of
the
termination
of
an
appointment, cancellation of an admission
to
an
educational
institution
or
disqualification from an electoral office
obtained on the basis that the candidate
belongs to a reserved category; and (f)
Prosecution for a criminal offence;

(iii) The decisions of this Court
in R. Vishwanatha Pillai (AIR 2004 SC
1469) and in Dattatray (AIR 2008 SC
1678) 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.

(iv) 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;"

26. In view of the principle laid
down
in
Jagdish
Balaram
Bahira
(supra), once the social status certificate is
declared false by the competent authority,
the appointment would render void or non
est. In that event, the employer would not
be required to initiate regular departmental
proceedings under the Rules for the reason
that the certificate would bind the
disciplinary authority. In such an event,
the delinquent employee can be removed
from service upon a show cause notice.
The disciplinary authority would have no
occasion to return a finding in a
proceedings to a charge. The very
foundation on which the services of the
delinquent employee was based upon
being demolished, the consequence would
be automatic removal from service. In the
instant case, admittedly, the District
Collector being the competent authority
upon verification had certified that the
petitioner does not belong to the SC
community,
consequently,
the
appointment of the petitioner would render
it void or non est. Even then IIT Kanpur
got conducted a full fledged departmental
enquiry for imposition of major penalty in
accordance with the Rules.

27. On specific query, learned
Senior Counsel for the petitioner failed
to point out any illegality, infirmity or
jurisdictional error in the impugned
order.

28. The writ petition being devoid of
merit is, accordingly, dismissed.

29. No cost.
----------
1 All. Ramakant Vs. Union of India & Ors.
1913
(2020)1ILR 1912

ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 26.11.2019

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE RAJAN ROY, J.

Consolidation No. 2141 of 1981

Heshamullah & Ors. ...Petitioners
Versus
The
U.P.
Sanchalak
Chakbandi,
Pratapgarh & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioners:
S. Mirza, Anjum Ara, Jagdish Singh,
Mohammad Aslam Khan, Shahid Raza

Counsel for the Respondents:
Jitendra Misra

A. Consolidation-Class-9 entry in favour
of - then too, erstwhile tenure holder did
not initiate any proceedings u/s 209 -
S.O.C considered this fact- but DDC
ignored-impugned order quashed.

Special Appeal allowed. (E-8)

(Delivered by Hon'ble Rajan Roy,J.)

1. None has appeared on behalf of
the contesting opposite party no.3 to argue
the matter.

2. Heard.

3. The dispute herein pertains to Gata
No.1022. The consolidation operation
started on 21.7.1973 on issuance of
notification under section 4. In the Basic
Year Khatauni the opposite party no.3
Mujibulla was recorded therein consequent
to a sale-deed said to have been executed
by the erstwhile tenure holder Habib Khan
in his favour in the year 1968 which
corresponds to 1375F. During partal a
dispute arose with regard to Sirdari rights
on the basis of adverse possession. The
petitioners who are the sons of Abdul
Majid were allegedly found to be in
possession of the land in dispute during
partal. When the dispute came up for
consideration before the Consolidation
Officer in the first round of litigation, the
Consolidation Officer (C.O.) rejected the
claim of the petitioners based on adverse
possession vide order dated 8.2.1978,
however, when an appeal was filed by the
petitioners before the Settlement Officer,
Consolidation (S.O.C.), the same was
allowed on 19.9.1978 and the order of the
Consolidation Officer was set aside and
the claim of the petitioners was accepted.
Against this the opposite party no.3 filed a
revision before the Deputy Director
Consolidation
(D.D.C.)
which
was
allowed on 10.2.1981. The order of the
S.O.C. dated 19.9.1978 was set aside and
the order of the C.O. dated 8.2.1978 was
restored. The D.D.C. while deciding the
revision was persuaded by the fact that the
name of Abdul Majid, father of the
petitioners came to be recorded in the
revenue records for the first time in 1375F
as being in possession under Class-9 entry.
According
to
him,
the
limitation
prescribed for perfection of title based on
adverse possession became 12 years with
effect from 14.11.2017 and, as, the name
of Abdul Majid was recorded from 1375F
till 1378F, for only 4 Fasli, therefore, the
aforesaid
period
of
prescription
for
perfection of title was not satisfied. He
was also persuaded by the fact that the
revenue parcha and receipts submitted by
the petitioners herein as proof of their
continuous and hostile adverse possession
were found by him to be of suspect
evidentiary value. Based on the aforesaid
he declined the claim of the petitioners and