The Punjab and Haryana High Court observed that the petitioner, belonging to the Muslim community was not entitled to be issued an SC certificate and upheld the termination of service of the petitioner, who was appointed under the SC category for the post of Assistant Professor.
Brief Facts:
The petitioner was appointed as an assistant professor under the SC category in the University of Respondent 2 in 2010. Thereafter in 2012, a complaint was made to the University against the petitioner and claiming that the petitioner obtained a job while claiming himself to be an SC candidate, but he cannot be selected under the same due to him being a Muslim and belonging to the Julaha community.
A committee in 2017 found that the petitioner had not been issued an SC certificate as per the report of the Deputy Commissioner. Another committee was then constituted by the Executive Council to consider the recommendation of the committee constituted earlier and came to the decision for the removal of the petitioner from service.
Contentions of the Applicant:
The counsel relied upon the judgment in Managing Director vs Karunakar to argue that the proceedings of the committee are vitiated as the petitioner was not given a copy of the enquiry report prior to the notice of the punishment. It was further argued that at the time of the issue of the appointment letter, it was not clarified that the petitioner had been appointed against the post meant for the SC category and therefore, it seemed to be a procedural lapse and it was difficult to ascertain whether there was any misrepresentation by the applicant or not.
Contentions of the Respondent:
The learned counsel appearing for the respondent argued that the issuance of an appointment letter to the petitioner without mentioning the category was irrelevant as he had mentioned his category as SC in the application form while applying for the post and his category during the interview was also mentioned as a SC.
It was further argued that the petitioner had secured the job by furnishing a forged document, as a person belonging to the Muslim community cannot be issued an SC certificate. The counsel relied on the judgment in Punjabrao Vs. Dr D.P. Meshram and others contend that for treating the person as belonging to Scheduled Caste, he must be one who professes either Hindu or Sikh religion. Further reliance was placed on the judgment in M. Chandra Vs. M. Thangamuthu and Anr. to argue that the petitioner cannot have the status of SC due to him belonging to a non-Hindu community and the petitioner thus secured the job by furnishing a forged document.
Observations of the Court:
The court observed that the material placed on record clearly shows that the petitioner was treated as an SC candidate throughout the selection process and in the absence of any column in the application form seeking information on whether a candidate is applying under the General Category or reserved category, mentioning of the category of reservation in the application form itself is an indication that the candidate is seeking the benefit of the reservation.
The court further stated that the settled position of law is that a person to have the status of SC must profess either Hinduism or any other religion mentioned in Para 3 of the Constitution (Scheduled Castes) Order, 1950 and due to the absence of any material which indicates that the petitioner professed Hinduism or any other religion specified in Para 3 of the Presidential Order, the petitioner was not entitled to be issued an SC certificate, being a person belonging to Muslim Community. The court relied on the judgment of The Chief Executive Officer, Bhilai Steel Plant, Bhilai Vs. Mahesh Kumar Gonnade and others held that when a person secured an appointment on the basis of a false certificate, he cannot be permitted to retain the benefit of wrongful appointment to state that appointment of the petitioner is void ab initio and he, thus cannot get the benefit of length of service as he was not entitled to it in the first instance.
The court concluded that even though the petitioner may not have misrepresented at the time of obtaining an SC certificate or obtained the same fraudulently since claimed and was given benefit under the said certificate to which he was definitely not entitled, he cannot be allowed to continue in service.
The decision of the Court:
The court dismissed the petition and upheld the decision of the termination of services of the petitioner.
Case Title: Abid Ali vs State of Haryana & Ors.
Coram: Hon’ble Ms. Justice Jaishree Thakur
Case No.: CWP No. 18033 of 2017 (O&M)
Advocate for the Applicant: Mr. R.S Bains, Mr Mohan Singh and Mr Saurabh Bedi
Advocate for the Respondent: Mr. Anant Kataria, DAG, Haryana and Mr A.S Virk
Read Judgment @LatestLaws.com
Picture Source :
