BANK OF INDIA AND ANR. versus AVINASH D. MANDIVIKAR AND ORS.

Citation: [2005] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 170 · Decided: 14-09-2005 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
BANK OF INDIA AND ANR. 
v. 
A VIN ASH D. MANDIVIKAR AND ORS. 
SEPTEMBER 14, 2005 
B 
[ARIJIT PASAYAT AND H.K. SEMA, JJ.] 
Service Law: 
Termination-Appointment under reserved category of Scheduled Tribe-
C Caste certificate referred to Scrutiny Committee for verification after ten years-
Committee invalidating caste certificate and holding that employee not 
belonging to Scheduled Tribe-Services terminated after conducting 
disciplinary proceedings-Termination order challenged on the ground that 
reference for verification of caste certificate not made within reasonable time-
D High Court not interfering with finding of Committee but directing reinstatement 
with continuity of service with back wages-Held, delayed reference for 
verification of caste certificate does not affect legality of reference when 
foundation of caste certificate is based on fraud-Plea about long years of 
service is inconsequential-Such person does not have any right even to be 
considered for appointment and it is no appointment in the eyes of law-
E Appointment. 
Respondent no. I joined services of appellant no.1-Bank on 
15.10.1976 under reserved category of Scheduled Tribe. Respondent no.1 
was promoted in reserved category in 1984 and his caste certificate was 
referred to the Committee for Scrutiny and Verification of Tribe Claims 
F for verification on 13.6.1987 which invalidated the caste certificate. 
Respondent no.1 filed writ petition challenging the order of the Scrutiny 
Committee which was dismissed as withdrawn granting liberty to the 
respondent no.I to challenge the legality of order of Scrutiny Committee 
and disciplinary proceedings in case any adverse inference was given .in 
G the enquiry proceedings initiated by the Bank. Enquiry Officer submitted 
report holding that the charges were proved and disciplinary authority 
after issuing show cause notice terminated the services of respondent no. I 
Writ petition filed by respondent no.1 challenging the termination order 
was allowed by the High Court holding that proceedings for verification 
H 
170 
BANK OF INDIA v. AVINASH D. ~ANDIVIKAR 
171 
of caste certificate were not initiated validly and directed reinstatement. A 
of respondent no.I in the post in which he was appointed with continuity 
of service with back wages. High Court further held that respondent no.I 
was not entitled to promotion as he did not belong to Scheduled Tribe. 
Hence this appeal by the Bank. 
Appellants contended that the conclusions of the High Court are B 
. clearly erroneous and contrary in terms"; that question of any reasonable 
period for initiation of action is immaterial when an action is founded on 
fraud; and that High Court by granting protection to respondent no.1 iias 
"' 
nullified the object for making scrutiny of the caste claim and the purpose 
behind providing reservation for Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes. C 
Respondent no.I-employee contended that High Court has taken 
equitable view considering that respondent no.I has put in nearly three 
decades of service and has about three years to go before retirement and 
denied him promotion by its order; and that respondent no.I had not 
practiced any fraud in making the caste claim. 
D 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1. Respondent no.I-employee obtained appointment in the 
service on the basis that he belonged to Scheduled Tribe. The Scrutiny 
Committee examined the various .documents and came to a definite E 
conclusion that documents were manipulated to present false claim. When 
the clear finding of the Scrutiny Committee is that he did not belong to 
Scheduled Tribe, the very foundation of his appointment collapses and his 
appointment is no appointment in the eyes of law. There is absolutely no 
justification for his claim in respect of post he usurped, as the same was 
meant for reserved candidate. The plea about long years of service in the F 
factual background of the present case is inconsequential. 
(178-E-F; 179-A) 
Kumari Madhuri Patil anJ Anr. v. Additional Commissioner, Tribal 
Development and Ors .. (1994) 6 SCC 241 and R. Vishwanatha Pillai v. State 
of Kera/a and Ors .. [2004) 2 sec IOS, relied on. 
G 
State of Maharashtra'" Mi/ind and Ors., [200I) I SCC 4, held 
inapplicable. 
2. The conclusions of the High Court are contradictory. On one hand 
the High Court faulted the reference which was made after about ten years H 
172 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2005) SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 
A and on the other hand accepted

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.