Gujarat High Court
Raijibhai Bharatsinh Sindha vs Gujarat State Electricity Corporation ... on 14 July, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/1113/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 14/07/2025
undefined
Reserved On : 30/06/2025
Pronounced On : 14/07/2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1113 of 2025
With
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 10476 of 2024
With
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1528 of 2025
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP N. BHATT
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No ========================================================== RAIJIBHAI BHARATSINH SINDHA & ORS.
Versus GUJARAT STATE ELECTRICITY CORPORATION LTD. & ANR. ========================================================== Appearance:
MR TR MISHRA(483) for the Petitioner(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 SANDEEP N. BHATT COMMON CAV JUDGMENT
1. As common question of facts and law are involved in all these petitions, at the request of learned advocates for the parties, all these petitions are disposed of by this common judgment.
2. These petitions are filed praying to quash and set aside the impugned orders and also to declare and hold that the services of the petitioners cannot be terminated on the Page 1 of 18 Uploaded by U. SRILATHA(HC00185) on Mon Jul 14 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jul 14 22:47:04 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/1113/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 14/07/2025 undefined ground of cancellation of Caste Certificate after about 15 years of continuous service.
3. The facts leading to filing of these petitions are such that the petitioners are working as Vidhyut Sahayaks in the respondent corporation since their initial appointment;
that they were originally appointed as trainee apprentice and on completion of successful training, they were issued the appointment orders; the matter was referred to the Scrutiny Committee to determine the status of Sindha community as there was a complaint that petitioners belong to Sindha community, which does not fall within the category of SEBC community; the Scrutiny Committee, in April, 2019, held that the Sindha Community do not fall within the category of SEBC community; the said order was challenged by some other petitioners being Special Civil Application Nos.1283, 1284 and 1296 of 2013, which petitions were rejected and the order of Scrutiny Committee was confirmed; Letters Patent Appeals being No.656 of 2013 and allied matters were filed against the said order, which were also dismissed with some observations; thereafter, Special Civil Application No.6574 of 2021 with 9021 of 2021 were filed by some other candidates against the show cause notice by which the petitioners have been asked to show cause as to why, their services be not terminate on the ground that appointments were void ab Page 2 of 18 Uploaded by U. SRILATHA(HC00185) on Mon Jul 14 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jul 14 22:47:04 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/1113/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 14/07/2025 undefined initio; the same petitions were disposed of on 22.2.2022, against which Letters Patent Appeal No.302 of 2022 with 303 of 2022 were filed, which were also disposed of; that some petitioners carried the matters to the Hon'ble Apex Court, which were also disposed of with some observations; that though the petitioners have completed more than 15 years of continuous service and confirmed as helper, the issuance of the impugned orders is arbitrary, illegal, discriminatory. Hence, these petitions are filed.
4. Heard learned advocates for the parties. 4.1 Learned advocate Mr.Mishra for the petitioners submitted that there is a service rule framed by the respondent which makes it compulsory to issue charge-sheet and conduct inquiry in accordance with law; that there is a notification issued by government wherein a decision is taken that the MLA of the area shall issue certificate about caste on the basis of which the Mamlatdar shall issue caste certificate; that there are 137 posts of SEBC candidates which are vacant and as per the directions given in the orders passed by the Division Bench and the Hon'ble Apex Court, to accommodate these persons against unreserved posts which are also 155 vacant posts; the respondents ought to have done so; instead of that they have issued the Page 3 of 18 Uploaded by U. SRILATHA(HC00185) on Mon Jul 14 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jul 14 22:47:04 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/1113/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 14/07/2025 undefined impugned orders of termination.
4.2 Learned advocate for the petitioners has submitted that the petitioners have given the certificates and on the basis of that, they have been given appointment against the SEBC community as the Sindha community used to be treated as candidate belonging to SEBC community. Learned advocate for the petitioners further submitted that the departmental inquiry is to be conducted for illegal certificate and in absence of the same, the petitioners cannot be terminated. He, therefore, submitted that these petitions are required to be allowed as prayed for.
4.3 In support of his submissions, learned advocate for the petitioners have relied on the following citations:
1. Ravinder Kumar V/s State of Haryana and ors., reported in 2010(5) SCC 136;
2. Raju Ramsing Vasava V/s Mahesh Deorao Bhibapurkar & Ors, decided on 29.8.2008 in SLP No.5308 of 2008 in SLP No.7555 of 2008.
3. Haryana Staff Selection Commission V/s Subhashchand & ors., of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Civil Appeal No.3695 of 2023.
4. Udaybhanrai V/s State of U.P. and ors., reported in AIR Page 4 of 18 Uploaded by U. SRILATHA(HC00185) on Mon Jul 14 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jul 14 22:47:04 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/1113/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 14/07/2025 undefined 1994 SC 1603.
5. M.S.Mudhol and ors. V/s S.D.Helegkar and ors., reported in 1993(3) SCC 519.
6. Bhartiya Sewa Samaj Trust T.r.Pres and Anr. V/s Yogeshbhai Ambalal Patel reported in AIR 2012 SC 3285.
5. Per contra, learned advocate Ms.Bhaya for the respondent has submitted that all the petitioners were appointed as Vidhyut Sahayaks from the list of apprentices prepared by the respondent on the basis of their SEBC certificates; that there is no dispute about the factual aspect that they were appointed on the post of SEBC; the scrutiny committee held that the certificate issued by the District Social Welfare Officer on 29.9.1994 cannot be accepted and they should immediately deposit and it is to be treated as cancelled and all the benefits which are taken as SEBC are illegal ab-initio; the show cause notice issued to the petitioners to show cause as to why their services should not be terminated in view of the decision of the Scrutiny Committee; certain documents were produced by the petitioners which were again scrutinized, however, the final conclusion was arrived at that the petitioners do not belong to SEBC; that as per the decision of Scrutiny Committee, their first appointment itself is illegal and void ab-initio and therefore they are discharged from service within 7 days from Page 5 of 18 Uploaded by U. SRILATHA(HC00185) on Mon Jul 14 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jul 14 22:47:04 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/1113/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 14/07/2025 undefined the date of receipt of the order as per the direction of this Court.
5.1 She submitted that when the petitioners have previously filed Special Civil Applications, then Letters Patent Appeals and the Special Leave Petitions and have lost till the highest Forum, it is now not open for the petitioners to argue anything in respect of caste certificates issue and they have no right to continue on the reserved post which is meant for SEBC. She submitted that the right of eligible candidates has been taken away by the petitioners by occupying these posts for so many years on the basis of these certificates. She submitted that the petitioners were given opportunity at every stage i.e. the Scrutiny Committee, this Hon'ble Court before the Single Judge and the Division Bench, the Hon'ble Apex Court, but they failed at every stage. So far as the observation of the Division Bench, as confirmed by the Hon'ble Apex Court, that if the posts of Vidhyut Sahayaks are available in general category and these petitioners can be accommodated, the respondents can accommodate them on the posts meant for general category; if the petitioners are accommodated on general posts, then it will be injustice to other general category persons who are senior to them. She, therefore, submitted that the petitioners cannot stand on both counts - one that they do not belong Page 6 of 18 Uploaded by U. SRILATHA(HC00185) on Mon Jul 14 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jul 14 22:47:04 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/1113/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 14/07/2025 undefined to SEBC and they are not eligible to be accommodated on the general post.
5.2 She further submitted that as far as departmental inquiry is concerned, Clause 6(d) of Statutory Service Rules, exception is provided wherein it is said that where report is received from the Government, no departmental inquiry is required to be conducted and therefore, when Scrutiny Committee which is an expert committee has scrutinized whether the petitioners belong to SEBC or not and their certificates are genuine or not and once the committee has given the report, there is no question of conducting the departmental inquiry about the illegal certificate. 5.3 She further submitted that the petitioners have continued in service because of the continuous litigations, otherwise, looking to their service, they had served for two years only. She, therefore, submitted that these petitions are required to be dismissed.
5.4 In support of her submissions, she has relied on the following citations:
(1) Chairman and Managing Director, Food Corporation of Page 7 of 18 Uploaded by U. SRILATHA(HC00185) on Mon Jul 14 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jul 14 22:47:04 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/1113/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 14/07/2025 undefined India reported in 2017(8) SCC 670.
(2) Bhubaneshwar Development Authority V/s Madhumita Das & Ors., reported in Civil Appeal No.3320 of 2023 decided on 2.5.2023.
6. I have heard the rival submissions of the learned advocates for the parties and also perused the material on record.
7. At the time of issuing notice in Special Civil Application No.1113 of 2025, this Court passed the following order on 2.1.2025:
"1. Learned advocate Ms.Lilu K Bhaya appearing for the respondents upon instructions states that considering the controversy involved in this petition and considering the fact that this is a third round of litigation and filing of reply would be necessary, therefore, she requests for time. Accordingly, she requests that the matter be kept on 29th January, 2025. However, she assures the Court that till next date of hearing, the services of the petitioner shall not be terminated.
2. In view of that issue NOTICE to the respondents making it returnable on 29 th January, 2025. Learned Page 8 of 18 Uploaded by U. SRILATHA(HC00185) on Mon Jul 14 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jul 14 22:47:04 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/1113/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 14/07/2025 undefined advocate Ms.Lilu K Bhaya waives the service of notice on behalf of the respondents."
The same assurance was ordered to continued in the rest of the two petitions and because of this, the petitioners are continued in service till date.
8. At the outset, it is required to be noted that some of the other persons who were similarly situated filed Special Civil Applications, wherein the learned Single Judge of this Court has referred to paragraph 15 of the Kumari Madhuri Patil V/s Additional Commissioner, Tribal Development reported in (1994) 6 SCC 241, wherein it was held that "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 the appointing authority by registered post with acknowledgment 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 other study or continue in office in a post" and dismissed the petitions. The said order was carried in Letters Page 9 of 18 Uploaded by U. SRILATHA(HC00185) on Mon Jul 14 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jul 14 22:47:04 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/1113/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 14/07/2025 undefined Patent Appeal, wherein the Division Bench of this Court has observed that "....when the certificate itself is declared to be void ab initio, subsequently, the conclusion that can be reached is that the appointment of the petitioners cannot be said to be valid in the eye of law because their appointment is based on the certificate holding the appellants to be belonging to SEBC category. In that view of the matter, the basic foundation of the appointment of the appellants has gone and therefore they cannot be allowed to continue on the post which are meant for the candidates belonging to SEBC category. The posts which are meant for reserved category must go to the reserved category...." and dismissed the appeals by upholding the view taken by the learned Single Judge. However, the Division Bench has observed that as the appellants have put in a long period of service of around 10 years, if the posts of Vidhyut Sahayaks are available in general category and these appellants can be accommodated, the respondents can accommodate them on the posts meant for general category. The said order was carried to the Hon'ble Apex Court, which were disposed of by the Hon'ble Apex Court by observing that "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 Vidhyut Sahayaks in the general category, if vacancies are available." Page 10 of 18 Uploaded by U. SRILATHA(HC00185) on Mon Jul 14 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jul 14 22:47:04 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/1113/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 14/07/2025 undefined
9. Yet another group of petitions, the appeals arising therefrom also met with the same fate.
10. The same issue is again before this Court by another petitioners. When the issue is already decided by this Court, which is confirmed by the Hon'ble Apex Court, nothing remains for this Court to decide in this case. The petitioners are in service from 2012 till date only on the basis of the litigations. The order of the Hon'ble Apex Court is of the year 2019. That means, the petitioners are occupying the posts otherwise meant for SEBC candidates since long without any basis. The Hon'ble Division Bench has given a ray of hope by observing that if the posts are available in the general category, then can be accommodated. However, it is for the respondent authority to ascertain the same and take a decision of whether to accommodate or not because it may lead to injustice to other persons who are senior to them. The petitioners are continued in service since long though they are held as not eligible, due to which the eligible persons, who could have been appointed had the petitioners had vacated the said posts, could not be appointed. It seems that the petitioners are filing litigation after litigation and are continued in service because of the interim orders obtained from this Court. Page 11 of 18 Uploaded by U. SRILATHA(HC00185) on Mon Jul 14 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jul 14 22:47:04 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/1113/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 14/07/2025 undefined
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 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 Page 12 of 18 Uploaded by U. SRILATHA(HC00185) on Mon Jul 14 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jul 14 22:47:04 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/1113/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 14/07/2025 undefined requirement of a dishonest intent. In importing such a requirement, the Bench of two Judges in Shalini [Shalini v. 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 v. 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 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 pleas 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.
Page 13 of 18 Uploaded by U. SRILATHA(HC00185) on Mon Jul 14 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jul 14 22:47:04 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/1113/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 14/07/2025 undefined
13. In this regard, a reference to the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Jayashree V/s 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 Page 14 of 18 Uploaded by U. SRILATHA(HC00185) on Mon Jul 14 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jul 14 22:47:04 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/1113/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 14/07/2025 undefined 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. 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. V/s 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 Page 15 of 18 Uploaded by U. SRILATHA(HC00185) on Mon Jul 14 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jul 14 22:47:04 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/1113/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 14/07/2025 undefined 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 31.5.1982 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."
15. In view of the above, reverting back to the facts Page 16 of 18 Uploaded by U. SRILATHA(HC00185) on Mon Jul 14 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jul 14 22:47:04 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/1113/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 14/07/2025 undefined of the present case, the scrutiny committee has long back held that the caste certificate of the petitioners is illegal, the said decision as upheld in various litigations upto the Hon'ble Apex Court and therefore, there is nothing left for this Court to post-mortem the case further, once it is already closed long ago. The petitioners are continued on the posts on which they were appointed on the basis of the Caste Certificates, which were held to be illegal by the Scrutiny Committee, because of which, the rights of the genuinely deserving persons of the said community were infringed. The persons who are possessing genuine caste certificate have been waiting for their turn to be appointed but due to the petitioners, whose caste certificates are held illegal, being continued, they could not be given a chance to be appointed i.e. the wrong are given the benefit and the right are deprived of the benefit. Therefore, this Court does not find any illegality or arbitrariness in the action of the respondents in issuing the impugned orders to the petitioners.
16. In view of the above discussion, these petitions are liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, dismissed. Notice/Rule stands discharged. Interim relief, if any, stands vacated.
(SANDEEP N. BHATT,J) SRILATHA After the pronouncement of the judgment, learned Page 17 of 18 Uploaded by U. SRILATHA(HC00185) on Mon Jul 14 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jul 14 22:47:04 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/1113/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 14/07/2025 undefined advocate for the petitioner has prayed to stay this judgment for a period of four weeks.
The request is accepted. This judgment is stayed for a period of four weeks.
(SANDEEP N. BHATT,J) SRILATHA Page 18 of 18 Uploaded by U. SRILATHA(HC00185) on Mon Jul 14 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jul 14 22:47:04 IST 2025