Satya Prakash vs Govt. Of N.C.T. Of Delhi And Anr.
2005 Latest Caselaw 276 Del

JUDGMENT

Vikramajit Sen, J.

1. Rule.

2. The matter has been heard in great detail.

3. My attention has been drawn to the Hon'ble Supreme Court's decision in Kumari Madhuri Patil v. Addl. Commissioner, , and in particular to the observations in paragraph 13. Sub-paragraphs 6, 7 and 15 of Paragraph 13 are reproduced for facility of reference.

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 show-cause 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 more than 30 days from the date of the receipt of 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 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 though counsel, the committee may make such inquiry as it deems expedient and consider the claims vis-a-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 favor 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 name procedure as is envisaged in para 6 be followed.

....

15. As soon as the finding is recorded by 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 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.

4. The allegation in the petition is that the Scrutiny Committee did not grant a personal hearing to either Shri Satya Prakash or his son Shri Ravinder Kumar prior to cancelling their Scheduled Tribes Certificates. On a reading of the Judgment in Madhuri's case (supra) this is clearly not in consonance with the law. Learned counsel for the TRIFED draws my attention on paragraph 16 of the Judgment but that is not relevant. The Court had to consider whether to permit the Petitioners, who were not entitled to benefit of any Reservation, to continue their studies. In that context it has been observed that persons who seek equity must come within cleanliness. The ratio of the Judgment is that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Madhuri's case (supra) was concrned that persons who are not entitled to the benefit of reservation should not be permitted to undeservedly reap the benefits of reservation for years and years. A time limit has, therefore, been set down by the Apex Court at every stage of Inquiry.

After the Inquiry of the Scrutiny Committee had been completed in compliance with the principles of natural justice, no further enquiry was envisaged. The difficulty, in the present case, is that the Petitioners have not been granted a personal herein by the Scrutiny Committee itself.

5.These petitions should have been admitted, and since a transgression of law has been committed, the Petitioners would be entitled to interim relief i.e. protection of their services during the pendency of the writs. The effect would be that they may avail of a benefit which they are not entitled to. The ratio in Madhuri's case would also be defeated.

6.In these circumstances, I consider it expedient to dispose of the writ petition at this stage itself by quashing the impugned order of the Scrutiny Committee and directing it to complete a fresh Inquiry within a period of 45 days from today, after giving the Petitioners an opportunity of being heard. The Petitioners to appear before the Scrutiny Committee on 23rd February, 2005.

7. Till the decision of the Scrutiny Committee is taken as directed above, status quo as regards the services of the Petitioners shall continue.

8. dusty.