BHUBANESWAR DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY versus MADHUMITA DAS AND ORS.

Citation: [2023] 6 S.C.R. 590 · Decided: 02-05-2023 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: D.Y. CHANDRACHUD · Disposal: Disposed off
cites 4 · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
590
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2023] 6 S.C.R.
   [2023] 6 S.C.R. 590
590
BHUBANESWAR DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
v.
MADHUMITA DAS AND ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 3320 of 2023)
MAY 02, 2023
[DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, CJI AND
J B PARDIWALA, J.]
Service Law – Dismissal from service – Cancellation of caste
certificate – Respondent obtained employment against a post which
was reserved for the Scheduled Caste – Her caste certificate was
invalidated by the Tehsildar on the ground that she did not belong
to a Scheduled Caste by birth and her marriage to a person
belonging to a Scheduled Caste would not entitle her to benefit of
the reservation for persons belonging to the caste of her spouse –
Appellant passed an order dismissing the first respondent from the
service – Single Judge of the High Court directed the appellant to
reconsider the claim of the first respondent for reinstatement –
Division Bench dismissed the appeal on the ground of  delay of five
hundred and sixty-four days – On appeal, held: Declining to
condone delay in the instant case would have serious consequences
of allowing an imposter to continue the benefit of a reserved seat –
This is not just a matter of detriment to the State but to genuine
aspirants to the reserved seat who would be ousted – Division Bench
ought to have condoned delay – No fault can be found with the
conduct of the appellant in convening a disciplinary enquiry – The
findings of the enquiry was unexceptionable – Punishment imposed
could not be regarded as disproportionate.
Chairman and Managing Director, Food Corporation
of India v. Jagdish Balaram Bahira (2017) 8 SCC 670
: [2017] 11 SCR 271; Valsamma Paul v. Cochin
University  (1996) 3 SCC 545 : [1996] 1 SCR 128 –
relied on.
Anjan Kumar v. Union of India (2006) 3 SCC 257 :
[2006] 2 SCR 208; Solunke v. State of Maharashtra
(2012) 8 SCC 430 : [2012] 7 SCR 251; Shalini v. New
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
591
English High School Association (2013) 16 SCC 526 :
[2013] 12 SCR 807 – referred to.
Case Law Reference
[1996] 1 SCR 128
relied on
para 6
[2006] 2 SCR 208
referred to
para 6
[2012] 7 SCR 251
referred to
para 11
[2013] 12 SCR 807
referred to
para 11
[2017] 11 SCR 271
relied on
para 19
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.3320
of 2023.
From the Judgment and Order dated 30.10.2019 of the High Court
of Orissa at Cuttack in IA No.625 of 2019.
Ashok Panigrahi, Nabab Singh, Ms. Geetanjali Das Krishnan, Advs.
for the Appellant.
Animesh Kumar, Neeraj Shekhar, Nishant Kumar, Ms. Aprajita,
Advs. for the Respondents.
The following Judgment and order of the Court were delivered :
JUDGMENT
DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, CJI
1. Leave granted.
2. This appeal arises from a judgment dated 30 October 2019 of a
Division Bench of the High Court of Orissa.
3. On 17 October 1998, the first respondent joined the service of
the appellant as a Junior Assistant against a post reserved for women
belonging to the Scheduled Castes. In support of her plea of belonging to
a Scheduled Caste, the first respondent submitted a caste certificate
which was issued by the Tehsildar, Bhubaneswar. The caste certificate
was issued on 5 January 1996 in Miscellaneous Case No. 7/1996,
mentioning that the first respondent belonged to a Scheduled Caste,
“Dewar”.
4. On 2 August 2011, the appellant requested the Sub-Collector,
Khurda (the fourth respondent) to enquire into the veracity of the caste
certificate on the ground that the high school certificate and provisional
BHUBANESWAR DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY v. MADHUMITA
DAS
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
592
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2023] 6 S.C.R.
marks sheet of the first respondent at the 12th standard examination
revealed that she was a Brahmin. On 3 August 2011, the Sub-Collector
directed an enquiry to verify the authenticity of the caste certificate
issued to the first respondent.
5. On 5 August 2011, the Tehsildar (the second respondent) issued
a notice to show cause to the first respondent after registering Rev.
Misc. Case No. 47 of 2011. In her response dated 16 August 2011, the
first respondent stated she was born into a Brahmin family. However,
she claimed to have attained the status of a Scheduled Caste upon her
marriage on 21 July 1993 to a person belonging to a Scheduled Caste.
6. On 16 August 2011, the Tehsildar passed an order cancelling
the caste certificate of the first respondent under Rule 8(2) of the Orissa
Caste Certificate (for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes) Rules,
1980. Placing reliance on the decisions of this Court in V
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.