IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P.(S) No.2899 of 2011
Ram Pravesh Bhakta Petitioner
…
Vs.
1.The State of Jharkhand
2.The Secretary, Employment & Training, Government of Jharkhand, Nepal
House, Doranda, District-Ranchi
3.The Director, Employment & Training, Government of Jharkhand, State
Secretariat at Nepal House, Doranda, First Floor, Ranchi, District-Ranchi
4.The Principal, Industrial Training Institute, Hazaribag, District-Hazaribag
5.The Investigating Officer, National Commission for Scheduled Caste, 189B,
Shri Krishnapuri, Patna-800001, District-Patna (Bihar)
6.The Block Development Officer, Vaishali (Hajipur), District-Vaishali (Bihar)
7.Shri Dinesh Prasad Golwara, Panchayat Sevak/Panchayat Sachiv of Mian
Bhairo Gram Panchayat, District-Vaishali (Hajipur), Bihar, PIN-844114
Respondents
…
----------
CORAM: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.N.PATHAK
For the Petitioner : Mr. Rajendra Krishna, Advocate
Mr. Bakshee Vibha, Advocate
For the Resp.-State : Mr. Uttam Kr. Das, AC to GP-VI
For the State of Bihar : Mr. Diwakar Upadhyay, AC to GA-Bihar
-----------
45/ 22.03.2024 Petitioner has approached this Court with a prayer for issuance of
writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the Letter
No.5/Training/Estt./71/2003-388, Ranchi dated 11.03.2011 issued by the
respondent No.3, the Director, Employment and Training, Government of
Jharkhand, Ranchi. Further prayer has been made not to take any coercive
action against the petitioner without following the procedures. Further prayer
has been made to quash the order No.826 dated 04.06.2013 and notice
published on 30.10.2013 by which service of the petitioner as Senior
Electrician Instructor has been terminated.
2. Petitioner was appointed on the post of Electrician Instructor, by the
Directorate of Employment and Training, Bihar, Patna vide letter No.T-1-
1101/XB-2-949 dated 19.03.1982 and since then he has been discharging his
duty efficiently, honestly and diligently to the satisfaction of the respondents.
Thereafter he was transferred to various places and in February 2004 was
transferred to ITI, Hazaribagh. After confirmation of service the petitioner
was promoted to the post of Senior Instructor in the Trade of Electrician. It is
specific case of the petitioner that after more than 30 years of service, on
-2-
17.03.2011, the impugned order no.388 dated 11.03.2011 (Annexure-1) was
issued and received by the petitioner and thereafter show-cause was issued by
the respondent No.3. The petitioner duly replied to the said show-cause
stating therein that his mother belongs to Turi caste and father was by caste
Koiri. The mother of the petitioner died in childhood and after death of his
mother he grown up under the care and guidance of his father. It is case of the
petitioner that he got employment on the basis of Schedule Caste certificate
issued to him by competent authority i.e., B.D.O. Vaishali who after due
enquiry issued the caste certificate bearing No.201 dated 16.07.1981 in favour
of the petitioner. On 11.03.2011 a show-cause notice was issued to the
petitioner that as per the report of B.D.O., he has submitted a false certificate
that he belongs to Turi community (Schedule Caste) and upon the same he
has obtained the employment. However, as per the report of B.D.O, Vaishali
the petitioner belongs to Kushwaha (Koiri) community. The Investigating
Officer, National Commission of Schedule Caste, Bihar have blindly accepted
the report of B.D.O., Vaishali and that of Panchayat Sewak and on the
recommendation of the Enquiry Officer, the petitioner was dismissed from
services on 04.06.2013. Left with no option the petitioner has been
constrained to knock the door of this Court for redressal of his grievances.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner assailing the impugned order urges
that impugned order is not tenable in the eyes of law. In view of the fact that
the caste certificate of the petitioner was not traceable as per the enquiry
report, the same cannot make the petitioner to be guilty of charges. Further it
has been argued that the order of termination issued vide notification dated
04.06.2013 is not sustainable in the eyes of law as the same cannot be given
retrospective effect. It has further been argued that in the criminal case based
on the identical charges, petitioner has been acquitted and thus onus lies on
the respondents to prove the charges and not the petitioner. Learned counsel
submits that in view of Government Circular Contained in Memo No.99
dated 03.03.1978 which stipulates -spring born to a caste Hindu
“that an off
Father and a Scheduled Caste Hindu Mother- could be considered a
tificate has been issued to him. The
Scheduled Caste” and rightly the caste cer
enquiry report is non-est in the eyes of law and is fit to be quashed and set
-3-
aside. The petitioner be reinstated in services with all consequential benefits
taking into account that he belongs to a Schedule Caste category and in view
of the fact that the caste certificate was issued in his favour by the competent
authority and he continued to work for more than 30 years. Merely because a
wrong finding has been given without any evidence, the same cannot be
tenable in the eyes of law.
4. Counter-affidavit has been filed by the State of Jharkhand as well as
State of Bihar. Counter-affidavit dated 07.12.2023 at para-24 clearly shows
that the enquiry officer after giving sufficient opportunity to the petitioner
proceeded in departmental enquiry and after perusal of the evidence available
on record, the same was concluded wherein the petitioner was found guilty of
the charges framed against him. The second show-cause notice was issued to
the petitioner and served upon him to which he duly replied. It is further
argued that the second show-cause notice, is contrary to the notification dated
03.01.2007 letter No.40 of Department of Personal, Administration Reform
Govt. of Jharkhand. Further as per the enquiry report the petitioner has been
found to be belonging to OBC category and not the Schedule Caste category,
as claimed and as such, the caste certificate produced by the petitioner was
forged one and any appointment based on that certificate is non-est in the
eyes of law. No illegality or infirmity has been pointed out in the entire
departmental proceeding and after following the due procedures, the
impugned order has been passed which is fully justified. Learned counsel for
the respondents-State of Jharkhand places heavy reliance on the judgment of
Mrs. Vesamma Paul Vrs. Cochin Union
Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of
reported in 1996(3) SCC and also in several other cases like D. Neelima case
(supra), Dr. T. Rajeswari case (supra) and A. Pratyusha case (supra). It is
clearly held that where father belongs to General Category and mother from
reserve category then their children cannot claim reservation for the purpose
of appointment. In the celebrated judgment of Regional Manager, Central
Bank of India Vrs. Madhulika Guru Prasad Dahir in SLP No.9781/Civil
Appeal No.4636/2008, it has been clearly held that any appointment made on
the basis of false caste certificate is void-ab-initio and rightly the petitioner
was terminated from service.
-4-
5. Learned counsel for the respondent State of Bihar adopted the
argument advanced by the respondent-State of Jharkhand and submits that
rightly petitioner has been dismissed from the services and he is not entitled
for any relief whatsoever.
6. Having gone through the rival submissions of the parties, across the
bar, this Court is of the considered view that no case is made out for
interference. The issue involved in the present writ petition is no more res-
integra. The same has been duly considered by this Court in the case of
Madhusudan Vs. State of Jharkhand and also in the case Sandeep Bakshi
Vs. State of Jharkhand & Ors. in W.P.(S) No.4721 of 2013. The observations
made in the case of Kumari Madhuri
judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in the
Patil v. Addl. Commissioner, Tribal Development, reported in (1994) 6 SCC
241 has duly been considered and thereafter the committee headed by
Director has passed the said order, it requires no interference. The legal
propositions as laid down in plethora of judgments
of Hon’ble Apex Court as
well as this Court is that any appointment based on forged certificate cannot
be termed to be an appointment in the eyes of law and the same is nullity and
as such requires no interference.
7. The writ petition merits dismissal and the same is hereby dismissed.
8. Pending I.A., if any stands closed.
(Dr. S.N. Pathak, J.)
Rohit/-