Gujarat High Court
Raijibhai Bharatsinh Sindha vs Gujarat State Electricity Corporation ... on 7 August, 2025
Author: A. S. Supehia
Bench: A.S. Supehia
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/987/2025 ORDER DATED: 07/08/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 987 of 2025
In R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1113 of 2025
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 1 of 2025
In R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 987 of 2025
In R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1113 of 2025
With
R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 988 of 2025
In R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 9299 of 2019
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 1 of 2025
In R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 988 of 2025
In R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 9299 of 2019
With
R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 989 of 2025
In R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 10476 of 2024
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 1 of 2025
In R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 989 of 2025
In R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 10476 of 2024
With
R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 990 of 2025
In R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 10476 of 2024
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 1 of 2025
In R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 990 of 2025
In R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 10476 of 2024
==========================================================
RAIJIBHAI BHARATSINH SINDHA & ORS.
Versus
GUJARAT STATE ELECTRICITY CORPORATION LTD. & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
C J GOGDA(7488) for the Appellant(s) No.
1,10,11,12,13,14,15,16,17,18,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9
VIKAS V NAIR(7444) for the Appellant(s) No.
1,10,11,12,13,14,15,16,17,18,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9
MS LILU K BHAYA(1705) for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. SUPEHIA
and
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R. T. VACHHANI
Page 1 of 9
Uploaded by MR.MITESH VIJAYBHAI PANCHAL(HCD0065) on Wed Aug 13 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Aug 13 21:39:25 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/987/2025 ORDER DATED: 07/08/2025
undefined
Date : 07/08/2025
COMMON ORAL ORDER
(PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. SUPEHIA)
1. The present Letters Patent Appeals emanate from the order passed by the learned Single Judge in the CAV judgment and order dated 14.07.2025 passed in Special Civil Application No.113 of 2025 and allied matters and order dated 15.07.2025 passed in Special Civil Application No.9299 of 2019, wherein the learned Single Judge has rejected the captioned petitions filed by the present appellants challenging their orders of termination from service on the ground of cancellation of Caste Certificates.
2. As recorded by the learned Single Judge, by now, the petitioners have completed 15 years of continuous service. There has been prior litigation relating to the verification of Caste Certificates, which were cancelled upon such verification. Ultimately, the same landed before the Supreme Court. The appellants - original petitioners filed SLP Nos. 953- 954 of 2015 against the cancellation of their Caste Certificates and their dismissal from service. The Supreme Court, by order dated 26.04.2019, issued the following directions:
"The District Social Welfare Officer (Developing Castes) held that the petitioners do not belong to SEBC category. The certificates issued in favour of the petitioners were cancelled by an order dated 28.08.2012. The Special Civil Applications filed by the petitioners were dismissed, and the judgment of the learned Single Judge was affirmed by the Division Bench of the High Court. While dismissing the appeals, the High Court directed the respondents to accommodate the petitioners in the posts of Vidyut Sahayaks in the General Category, if posts were available. This direction was given by the High Court taking into account the fact that the petitioners had served about 10 years. We are informed that the petitioners Page 2 of 9 Uploaded by MR.MITESH VIJAYBHAI PANCHAL(HCD0065) on Wed Aug 13 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Aug 13 21:39:25 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/987/2025 ORDER DATED: 07/08/2025 undefined are still in service by virtue of the interim order passed by this Court while issuing notice on 01.04.2015.
In the facts and circumstances of these cases, we can do no better than reiterating the direction given by the High Court. The respondents are directed to consider accommodating the petitioners as Vidyut Sahayaks in the General Category, if vacancies are available.
The Special Leave Petitions are disposed of.
Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of."
3. Pursuant to the aforesaid directions of the Supreme Court, the respondents undertook necessary exercise and considered the case for accommodating the appellants in the General Category. However, as recorded in the show cause notice dated 13.01.2025, they could not be accommodated as General Category candidates, who were already serving in the feeder cadre as apprentices were waiting for their posting to the post of helpers.
4. The show cause notice dated 13.01.2025 was further challenged by the present appellants before the learned Single Judge in Special Civil Application No. 6574 of 2021, which was also dismissed by the judgment and order dated 22.02.2022.
5. The appellants - original petitioners again assailed the same by filing Letters Patent Appeals No. 302 of 2022 and allied matters. By the order dated 08.03.2022, the Division Bench also dismissed the said Letters Patent Appeals by recording that in case, any adverse decision is taken by the respondent authorities against the appellants, the same may not be implemented for a period of one week, granting an extension of stay.
6. Thus, throughout the appellants - original petitioners were continued in service, and ultimately, the respondents passed the order Page 3 of 9 Uploaded by MR.MITESH VIJAYBHAI PANCHAL(HCD0065) on Wed Aug 13 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Aug 13 21:39:25 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/987/2025 ORDER DATED: 07/08/2025 undefined dated 13.01.2024 terminating the petitioners from service on the ground of cancellation of Caste Certificates. The same was assailed in the captioned petitions, and the learned Single Judge was pleased to reject the same.
7. Today, when the matter is taken up, learned senior advocate Mr. Shalin Mehta appearing for the appellants has pointed out the directions issued by the Supreme Court in the order dated 26.04.2019 and submitted that the respondents were supposed to accommodate the appellants in the vacancies of General Category candidates. He submitted that it is not the case of the respondents that the appellants had obtained employment by way of a forged caste certificate, but the caste to which the appellants belong was abolished from the list of "Reserved Categories". It is further submitted that the learned Single Judge fell in error in rejecting the petition on the ground that the appellants - original petitioners had forged the Caste Certificates. Thus, it is urged that the respondents may be directed to reinstate the appellants - original petitioners. It is also submitted that the appellants are ready and willing to give up their seniority in case they are continued in service.
8. Learned advocate Ms. Lilu K. Bhaya has vehemently opposed the present appeals and submitted that the appellants have been continued for all these years on the basis of SEBC Caste Certificates and were appointed on reserved posts on the basis of such certificates. It is submitted by her that ultimately, the Scrutiny Committee, which is an expert committee, scrutinized the Caste Certificates of the appellants and did not find them genuine. She has further submitted that the appellants have failed in all litigations relating to the cancellation of their Caste Certificates, and hence, they cannot be reinstated in service. She has further submitted that the respondents have also considered their cases for Page 4 of 9 Uploaded by MR.MITESH VIJAYBHAI PANCHAL(HCD0065) on Wed Aug 13 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Aug 13 21:39:25 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/987/2025 ORDER DATED: 07/08/2025 undefined appointing them in the General Category vacancies however, it was found that they could not be accommodated as seniors, to them are still waiting to be appointed to the post of Helpers, and the rights of such employees, who are waiting to be appointed in the General Category on the post of helpers, will get jeopardized inter se. Thus, the present appeals may not be entertained.
9. We have heard the learned advocates for the respective parties.
10. The issue with regard to the cancellation of Caste Certificates of all the appellants is no more res integra. The same has been laid to quietus by the Supreme Court, and the only issue which is confined in the captioned petitions and before us, is relating to accommodating the appellants on the post of Vidyut Sahayaks in the General Category, as per the direction issued by the Supreme Court vide order dated 26.04.2019.
11. A plain and simple reading of the direction issued by the Supreme Court exposit that the Supreme Court has only directed the respondents to "consider" accommodating the appellants as Vidyut Sahayaks. The respondents have accordingly considered their case and found that they cannot be accommodated, as the rights of General Category candidates would get jeopardized.
12. Learned Single Judge, after considering the legal precedents on the issue of cancellation of Caste Certificates and the rights of such employees in holding the post, has rejected the petitions by observing thus:
"11. As regards the decisions relied on by the learned advocate for the petitioners, the same have been over-ruled in the latest decision of Page 5 of 9 Uploaded by MR.MITESH VIJAYBHAI PANCHAL(HCD0065) on Wed Aug 13 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Aug 13 21:39:25 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/987/2025 ORDER DATED: 07/08/2025 undefined Madhumita Das & ors. (supra), wherein it is observed in paragraphs 20 and 21 as under:
"20. In Shalini (supra), a two Judge Bench of this Court relied on Kavita Solunke (supra) to propound a test of dishonest intention for the grant or denial of protection to persons whose caste claims have been invalidated. In Shalini (supra), this Court directed reinstatement of the individual whose caste certificate was found to be invalid because they did not intentionally falsify their caste certificate.
21. In Chairman and Managing Director, Food Corporation of India (supra), the issue before this Court was whether protection should be granted to individuals who secure access to reservation in spite of the fact that they do not belong to the reserved community. This Court overruled Kavita Solunke (supra) and Shalini (supra) on the ground that it would be contrary to the express provision of the law to import the requirement of dishonest intention. This Court held:
55. [...] The intent of a candidate may be of relevance only if there is a prosecution for a criminal offence. However, where a civil consequence of withdrawing the benefits which have accrued on the basis of a false caste claim is in issue, it would be contrary to the legislative intent to import the requirement of a dishonest intent. In importing such a requirement, the Bench of two Judges in Shalini [Shalini Vs. New English High School Assn., MANU/SC/1302/2013 : (2013) 16 SCC 526: (2014) 3 SCC (L&S) 265] has, with great respect, fallen into error. The judgment in Shalini [Shalini Vs. New English High School Assn., MANU/SC/1302/2013 : (2013) 16 SCC 526: (2014) 3 SCC (L&S) 265] must, therefore, be held not to lay down the correct principle. In the very nature of things it would be casting an impossible burden to delve into the mental processes of an applicant for a caste certificate. [...] This Court further held that granting protection to individuals who are ineligible for the post has a deleterious effect on good governance as it: (i) allows an ineligible person to gain access to a scarce public resource (public employment); (ii) violates the rights Page 6 of 9 Uploaded by MR.MITESH VIJAYBHAI PANCHAL(HCD0065) on Wed Aug 13 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Aug 13 21:39:25 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/987/2025 ORDER DATED: 07/08/2025 undefined of eligible persons; and (iii) perpetuates illegality by unduly bestowing benefits on an ineligible person."
12. As regards the sympathetic plea that the petitioners have been serving for more than 20 years, they cannot be now ousted on the basis of the illegal caste certificate, the said plea is not available to the petitioners as actually speaking, deducting the period of litigations, they have worked for only two years and rest of the years, they have been working on sympathy only.
13. In this regard, a reference to the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Jayashree Vs. Director, Collegiate Education, State of Karnataka reported in (2022) 13 SCC 176, it is observed in paragraph 20 as under:
"20. The High Court has proceeded on the basis that it is futile to have given the Appellant an opportunity before the order of termination. True, the principles of natural justice have been highlighted by the Appellant which is a part of the mandate of Article 14 itself. However, an exception to the principle would be a case where it is entirely futile to provide an opportunity. Giving an opportunity to the Appellant under the circumstances in question when the finding as regards her not belonging to the Scheduled Tribe has become final, in our view would have been a futile exercise. No other course could have been adopted by the employer in the circumstances concerned. We are of the view that keeping in mind the fact that her continuance in service would deprive a member of the Scheduled Tribe community of an opportunity which was usurped by the Appellant in the first place would be sufficient answer to the case that it would not have been a futile exercise. The termination of service of the Appellant in the face of the finality attained regarding her not belonging to Scheduled Tribe community is a crucial fact which deprives an employer of any discretion in the matter of terminating her services. At the time of the termination of service, the Appellant was 40 years. It is not as if the Appellant was on the verge of retirement. Being voidable Under Section 4(4) of the Act, and bereft of any choice, the facts not being in dispute, and to allow an usurper to continue being a palpable illegality and a constitutional sin, in the context, action by the competent authority terminating the services is perfectly valid.
Page 7 of 9 Uploaded by MR.MITESH VIJAYBHAI PANCHAL(HCD0065) on Wed Aug 13 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Aug 13 21:39:25 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/987/2025 ORDER DATED: 07/08/2025 undefined
Therefore, we do not agree with the argument that the order of termination was bad in law."
14. In yet another judgment in the case of Addl. General Manager - Human Resource, Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd. Vs. Suresh Ramkrishna Burde reported in (2007) 5 SCC 336, it is held in paragraphs 13 and 14 as under:
"13. The principle, which seems to have been followed by this Court is, that, where a person secures an appointment on the basis of a false caste certificate, he cannot be allowed to retain the benefit of the wrong committed by him and his services are liable to be terminated. However, where a person has got admission in a professional course like engineering or MBBS and has successfully completed the course after studying for the prescribed period and has passed the examination, his case may, on special facts, be considered on a different footing. Normally, huge amount of public money is spent in imparting education in a professional college and the student also acquires the necessary skill in the subjects which he has studied. The skill acquired by him can be gainfully utilized by the society. In such cases the professional degree obtained by the student may be protected though he may have got admission by producing a false caste certificate. Here again no hard and fast rule can be laid down. If the falsehood of the caste certificate submitted by the student is detected within a short period of his getting admission in the professional course, his admission would be liable to be cancelled. However, where he has completed the course and has passed all the examinations and acquired the degree, his case may be treated on a different footing. In such cases only a limited relief of protection of his professional degree may be granted.
14. In the case in hand the respondent got appointment on 31.05.1982 on a post, which was reserved for a member of Scheduled Tribe. On receiving complaints the employer referred the matter to the District Collector, Nagpur and also to Scrutiny Committee in March, 1991. The subsequent period has been spent in making enquiry and in litigation as the respondent filed three writ petitions. In view of the principle laid down by this Court we are clearly of the opinion that his services were rightly terminated by the appellant and the High Court was in error in directing his reinstatement. The order passed by the High Court, therefore, has to be set aside."Page 8 of 9 Uploaded by MR.MITESH VIJAYBHAI PANCHAL(HCD0065) on Wed Aug 13 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Aug 13 21:39:25 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/987/2025 ORDER DATED: 07/08/2025 undefined
13. We are in complete agreement with the findings recorded by the learned Single Judge. The appellants have no right to be reinstated in service in view of the fact that their Caste Certificates are already cancelled, and so far as the directions issued by the Supreme Court is concerned, their case for accommodation has been considered by the respondents, and it is found that they cannot be accommodated in the General Category vacancies, denying the claim of seniors, who are waiting for their chance to be appointed as Helpers.
14. Thus, the present appeals fail, and the same are rejected. At this stage, learned senior advocate Mr. Shalin Mehta submitted that the appellants are still in service and working since 15 years. Hence, the stay against their termination may be extended for a period of two weeks. We accept the suggestion, and we hereby direct that for a period of two weeks, the respondents shall not terminate the appellants.
15. The connected Civil Applications stand disposed of accordingly.
Registry to place a copy of the present order in each of the connected matter(s).
Sd/- .
(A. S. SUPEHIA, J)
Sd/- .
(R. T. VACHHANI, J)
MVP/Supp.1/1-4
Page 9 of 9
Uploaded by MR.MITESH VIJAYBHAI PANCHAL(HCD0065) on Wed Aug 13 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Aug 13 21:39:25 IST 2025