Orissa High Court
Susama Pradhan vs State Of Odisha & Others .... Opposite ... on 5 December, 2023
Author: R.K. Pattanaik
Bench: R.K. Pattanaik
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C) No.23149 of 2014
Susama Pradhan .... Petitioner
M/s. S.K. Mishra, Advocate & Associates
-Versus-
State of Odisha & others .... Opposite Parties
Mr. J.P. Patra, ASC
CORAM:
MR. JUSTICE R.K. PATTANAIK
ORDER
05.12.2023
Order No.
07. 1. Mr. Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.
Patra, learned ASC for the State.
2. None appears for opposite party No.9 despite valid service
of notice.
3. Instant writ petition is filed by the petitioner assailing the
impugned order under Annexure-2 passed by the State Level
Scrutiny Committee in connection with FCC No.411 of 2010 on the
grounds stated therein.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
petitioner has not availed or derived any benefit or advantage by
claiming herself to be a Schedule Tribe at the time and later to the
appointment as a Sweeper in DAV School, Unit-VIII, Bhubaneswar,
so therefore, the impugned order under Annexure-2 should not
affect her employment. While contending so, the relevant provision,
such as, Section 10 of the Odisha Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes
and Backward Classes (Regulation of issuance and Verification of
Caste Certificates) Act, 2011 (hereinafter referred to 'the Act') is
referred to. It is contended that as per the aforesaid provision,
whosoever not being a person belonging to the reserved category,
secures admission in any educational institution or appointment in
the Government, Local Authority or in any Public Sector
Undertaking or in any Government aided institution or Co-
operative Society shall be liable to be debarred from such institution
and employment with the realization of any amount paid to her in
view of Sub-Section (2) thereof. Hence, it is submitted that the
petitioner having not managed such employment in the school on
the basis of her caste, despite the impugned order under Annexure-
2, it shall have no adverse consequence. That apart, a judgment of
this Court in W.P.(C) No. 325 of 2014 in the case of Narottam
Mallick @ Naik Vrs. State of Odisha and others is placed reliance on
by learned counsel for the petitioner, wherein, the action has been
interfered with on such a plea being accepted since the appointment
was not secured on the basis of reservation. So therefore, the
contention is that the petitioner though found to have submitted a
Scheduled Tribe certificate later on but when she has not been
appointed on the basis of her caste, it should not be visited with any
adverse action pursuant to Annexure-2.
5. Mr. Patra, learned ASC on the other hand submits that the
provisions of Orissa Caste Certificates (Schedule Castes and Schedule
Tribes) Rules, 1980 (shortly as the 'Rules') apply to the case at hand
and in so far as the petitioner is concerned, since she produced a
fake ST certificate before the concerned School, rightly, therefore,
action was initiated leading to the decision of the State Level
Scrutiny Committee vide Annexure-2 which, hence, does not call for
any interference.
6. In so far as Section 10 of the Act is concerned, it deals with
action against a person, who secured admission or employment in
any such institution so described therein, whereas, in the present
case, the petitioner is an employee of a private school. The said
provision, on a bare reading, deals with the educational institutions
and appointments in Government, Local Authority or Public Sector
Undertakings etc. In fact, the provision relates to securing admission
in any educational institution against seat reserved for such reserved
category and in the present case, as made to reveal from Annexure-
2, the petitioner was appointed in the school vide letter dated 21st
November, 2008 attached to the Inquiry Report indicating therein
that the alleged appointment as Sweeper not to be on the basis of
her caste as the said institution does not have any reservation policy.
7. Referring to the above provision, it is contended that no
doubt, the appointment of the petitioner is in an educational
institution but then, the report of the I.O. revealed that the same
was not on the basis of any reservation policy of the school. The
aforesaid provision deals with securing admission and appointment
followed by consequences. It is not a case of admission in any
educational institution but relates to an appointment in a privately
managed school, so therefore, Section 10 of the Act does not apply
in stricto sensu.
8. Mr. Patra, learned ASC for the State refers to Rule 8(3) of
the Rules, which stipulates that any person securing an appointment
in any office or in an establishment on the basis of a false claim
regarding caste shall be liable for termination from service. By
placing reliance on the said provision, it is further contended that
the petitioner since not belonging to ST community and she later
produced a caste certificate having obtained it in connection with
RMC No.179 of 1985, rightly, the Scrutiny Committee held her
responsible and therefore, likely action to be followed in view of
the Rule 8(3) of the Rules.
9. As regards, the impugned order i.e. Annexure-2 in absence
of any response from opposite party No.9 but considering the fact
that the I.O.'s report revealed the appointment of the petitioner in
the school not on the basis of her caste in the institution having no
reservation policy, the Court is of the considered view that the
impugned decision is unlikely to affect her employment. In other
words, the Court is of the considered view that the other
consequences to follow in view of the impugned order i.e.
Annexure-2 but unlikely to having any adverse consequence in so
far as the petitioner's employment with opposite party No.9. Such a
view has already been expressed by this Court in Narottam Mallick
@ Naik (supra) as therein the action vis-à-vis the appointment of
the petitioner was set aside on the basis that he was not appointed
against any reserved category, similar to the present case. So
therefore, the conclusion is that the employment of the petitioner
should not be affected in view of Annexure-2 with such other
adverse consequences to follow as recommended by the State Level
Scrutiny Committee.
10. Accordingly, it is ordered.
11. In the result, the writ petition stands disposed of in the
above terms and to the extent as aforesaid.
12. Urgent copy of this order be issued as per rules.
(R.K. Pattanaik)
Balaram Judge
Designation: Personal Assistant
Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK
Date: 06-Dec-2023 19:07:23
