Gujarat High Court

Rameshbhai Pratapsinh Parmar vs State Of Gujarat on 19 September, 2025

                                                                                                                      NEUTRAL CITATION




                              C/SCA/9893/2017                                           ORDER DATED: 19/09/2025

                                                                                                                       undefined




                                     IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

                                       R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 9893 of 2017
                                                           With
                                       R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 9894 of 2017
                                                           With
                                       R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 9895 of 2017
                                                           With
                                       R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 9896 of 2017
                       ==========================================================
                                                 RAMESHBHAI PRATAPSINH PARMAR
                                                             Versus
                                                    STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.
                       ==========================================================
                       Appearance:
                       HIMANSHI R BALODI(8919) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
                       MS LILU K BHAYA(1705) for the Respondent(s) No. 4,5
                       MS POOJA ASHAR, AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2,3
                       ==========================================================
                          CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP N. BHATT

                                                              Date : 19/09/2025

                                                        COMMON ORAL ORDER

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 order.

2. These petitions are filed praying to quash and set

aside the impugned orders passed by the Director, Tribal

Development Department, Gujarat State, Gandhinagar

cancelling the caste certificates of the petitioners.

3. The facts leading to filing of these petitions are

such that the petitioners were working as P.A.Grade-I at

GSECL-KLTPS in Operation Unit-3; that at the time of

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/9893/2017 ORDER DATED: 19/09/2025

undefined

joining the service with the respondent Authorities, the

petitioners have submitted necessary certificates and on the

said basis, the petitioners are appointed; the respondents

authorities intend to terminate the services of the petitioners

on the basis of the impugned decision taken by the Scrutiny

Committee dated 6.6.2016 that now the sub-caste of the

petitioners is not included in the category of SEBC

community and the respondent authorities have issued show

cause notice dated 10.6.2016 to the petitioner as to why the

services of the petitioners should not be terminated, since

now the petitioners does not belong to SEBC community.

Hence, these petitions are filed.

4. Heard learned advocates for the parties.

4.1 Learned advocate Ms.Balodi for the petitioners has

submitted that it is not in dispute that the petitioner has

not obtained Caste Certificate by misleading or committing a

fraud; right from the beginning the Hindu-Rajpur-Baraiya

community is used to be treated as SEBC community; that

the petitioner is a bonafide job seekers and after having

cleared the apprenticeship training and departmental

examination, has been given regular appointment, which

cannot be deprived of by issuing impugned order dated

6.6.2016. He, therefore, submitted that these petitions are

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/9893/2017 ORDER DATED: 19/09/2025

undefined

required to be allowed.

4.2 Learned AGP Ms.Ashar and learned advocate

Ms.Bhaya for the respondents have submitted that the issue

involved in this group of petitions is already decided by this

Court in another group of petitions, carried by way of appeal

before the Division Bench and also before the Apex Court

and everywhere the petitions are decided against the

petitioners. She, further submitted that, this Court in a

group of petitions being Special Civil Application Nos.1113 of

2025 and allied matters has considered the said issue and

dismissed the said petitions and the said order was carried

in appeal before the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court

being Letters Patent Appeal No.987 of 2025 and allied

matters, which were also dismissed. They, therefore, submitted, without arguing anything further on merits, that

these petitions may also be dismissed as the issue is already

decided upto the Hon'ble Apex Court.

4.3 I have heard the rival submissions of the learned

advocates for the parties and also perused the material on

record.

4.4 This Court in Special Civil Application Nos.1113 of

2025 and allied matters, while considering similar type of

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/9893/2017 ORDER DATED: 19/09/2025

undefined

issue, has observed and held as under:

"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 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

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/9893/2017 ORDER DATED: 19/09/2025

undefined

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."

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

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/9893/2017 ORDER DATED: 19/09/2025

undefined

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.

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

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/9893/2017 ORDER DATED: 19/09/2025

undefined

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 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

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/9893/2017 ORDER DATED: 19/09/2025

undefined

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.

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:

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/9893/2017 ORDER DATED: 19/09/2025

undefined

"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 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

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/9893/2017 ORDER DATED: 19/09/2025

undefined

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 necessary skill in the subjects which he has studied. The skill acquired by him can be gainfully

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/9893/2017 ORDER DATED: 19/09/2025

undefined

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/9893/2017 ORDER DATED: 19/09/2025

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."

5. In view of the above, without discussing anything

further on merits, when the said issue is already decided

upto the Hon'ble Apex Court, as referred to hereinabove,

these petitions are also liable to be dismissed. Accordingly,

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/9893/2017 ORDER DATED: 19/09/2025

undefined

dismissed. Notice/Rule, if any, stands discharged. Interim

relief, if any, stands vacated.

5.1 At this stage, a request is made by learned

advocate for the petitioners that permission may be granted

to make a representation before the authority, which can be