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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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."

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.

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

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.

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

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

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

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