Delhi High Court
Shital Yadeorao Parate vs The Chairman-Cum-Managing ... on 28 January, 2011
Author: Sudershan Kumar Misra
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
WRIT PETITION(C) NO.540/2011
Date of Decision : January 28, 2011
SHITAL YADEORAO PARATE ..... Petitioner
Through Mr. J.S.Mann, Mr. K.K.Prasad, Advocate
versus
THE CHAIRMAN-CUM-MANAGING DIRECTOR & ANR.
.....Respondent
Through Mr. Ritesh Sharma, Mr. Jagat Arora,
Mr. Sudershan Pillai, Advocates
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDERSHAN KUMAR MISRA
1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the
judgment? No
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? No
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? No
SUDERSHAN KUMAR MISRA, J. (ORAL)
CM No.1147/2011 (Exemption)
Exemption, as prayed for, is allowed, subject to all just
exceptions.
This application stands disposed of.
WP(C) No.540/2011
1. The petitioner claims that he belongs to the 'HALBA' tribe and
has relied upon a certificate, dated 13 th July, 1989, bearing Rev. Case
No. 127/MRC81/88-89, issued by the competent authority i.e. the
Court of H.M. Gikawad, Naib Tehsildar and Executive Magistrate,
Nagpur, Maharashtra for the purpose of seeking employment with the
respondent against vacancies reserved for the Scheduled Tribes.
Consequent upon his selection as a Management Trainee and on his
completion of Induction Training Programme, the respondent / FCI
offered him an appointment to the post of Manager (A/Cs) by a letter
dated 13th September, 2007. This was accepted by the petitioner and
he joined the duties of the respondent.
2. Thereafter, a memorandum was issued by the respondent to the
petitioner on 23rd March, 2010 stating that, after the caste certificate
submitted by the petitioner was forwarded to the District Magistrate,
Nagpur, Maharashtra and to the Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny
Committee, Nagpur on 7th February, 2007, for verification of
genuineness; a letter dated 29th October, 2007 was received by the
respondent from the Scrutiny Committee enclosing the prescribed
application Forms 'E', and 'F', along with a list of documents required,
with the request that the petitioner be directed to submit his
application, duly completed, as soon as possible to their office. All
these forms were handed over by the respondent to the petitioner with
the direction to submit the same directly to the committee. Thereafter,
the petitioner also gave an undertaking to the respondent that he has
submitted the same. However, since the requisite verification of the
genuineness of the petitioner's caste certificate from the concerned
committee was not received by the respondent, the petitioner was
directed to provide the verification of genuineness of his caste
certificate (ST) from the Joint Commissioner & Vice Chairman,
Scheduled Tribe Caste Scrutiny Committee within a fortnight, failing
which, it will be presumed that the caste certificate (ST) submitted by
him is bogus and the confirmation of his present post will be
withdrawn and necessary action as deemed fit will be initiated against
him.
3. Ultimately, a show cause notice dated 18th January, 2011 was
issued to the petitioner by the respondent alleging that the petitioner
has furnished false information regarding his submission of form 'E'
and 'F' duly filled in with the aforesaid Scheduled Tribe Scrutiny
Committee. The notice further stated that although the petitioner had
submitted an undertaking dated 15th October, 2008 which said that he
has submitted the relevant forms, however, later on 28th April, 2010
the petitioner stated that he has submitted his application only on 28 th
April, 2010. The notice also stated that thereafter on 8th July, 2010,
30th July, 2010 and again on 23rd August, 2010 the petitioner
requested for more time to submit the aforesaid forms. Furthermore,
on 13th October, 2010, the petitioner even sought permission from the
respondent to not submit those forms on the pretext of a decision to
be delivered by the Bombay High Court. This show cause notice called
upon the petitioner to explain his conduct, and to produce the required
verification of genuineness of his caste certificate within fifteen days
from the date of receipt of this notice, failing which action as deemed
fit, will be initiated against him.
4. It is submitted that the petitioner's union, namely Bhartiya
Khadya Nigam Karamchari Sangh, to which he belongs, had filed a
Writ Petition (C) No. 505/2010 in the Bombay High Court seeking
similar treatment given by the Government of India to Scheduled
Castes / Scheduled Tribes employees of Public Sector Bankings and
financial institutions, namely that the candidates who are availing
benefits of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe, may, upon
furnishing a sworn affidavit that they will not claim any such benefit in
future, be treated as general candidates thereafter. The Bombay High
Court had by its order dated 2nd July, 2010 held that this is a matter of
policy and does not propose to adjudicate upon it. Further permission
was given to the petitioner to make a fresh representation before the
Union of India, which has been done but no decision has been taken
by the Union of India as yet.
5. Counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner has filed a
representation before the Scrutiny Committee and since the matter
has been delayed by the said Committee, for no fault of his client, it
will be unfair on the part of the respondent to take any action in terms
of the impugned show cause notice dated 18 th January, 2011.
6. If the petitioner had, in fact, submitted the required forms as
claimed by him on 15th October, 2008, there was no question of
seeking more time to submit those forms in the year 2010 or of his
seeking permission thereafter not to submit those forms. It was found
that, in fact, the petitioner had not submitted the relevant 'E' and 'F'
forms to the Caste Scrutiny Committee, Nagpur.
7. To my mind, this is not a fit case for the exercise of this Court's
jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. I also do not
see any ground to interfere with the impugned order, particularly,
since no proof with regard to submission of the aforesaid 'E' and 'F'
forms have been annexed with the petition.
8. The writ petition is, therefore, dismissed.
CM No.1146/2011(Stay)
9. Since the main petition has been dismissed, this application does
not survive and is also dismissed.
SUDERSHAN KUMAR MISRA, J.
JANUARY 28, 2011
