CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, ZILLA PARISHAD versus STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & OTHERS

Citation: [2010] 5 S.C.R. 127 · Decided: 22-04-2010 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: J.M. PANCHAL · Disposal: Case Partly allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

[2010] 5 S.C.R. 127 
CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, ZILLA PARISHAD 
v. 
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & OTHERS 
{Civil Appeal No. 2048 of 2007) 
APRIL 22, 2010 
• 
[J.M. PANCHAL AND DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA, JJ.] 
• 
A 
B 
Service Law -
Termination -
Respondent no. 2 
appointed as temporary Assistant Teacher in Scheduled 
Tribes category - Tribe Certificate produced by him found C 
invalid by Scheduled Tribe Caste Scrutiny Committee -
Consequent termination of respondent no.2 - He applied to 
· Government to reinstate him in service claiming that he 
belonged to S. B. C. (Special Backward Class) category and 
seeking protection under a Government Resolution which 
D 
inter alia, specified the castes considered as SBC -
Government directed the appellant to take necessary action 
in favour of respondent no.2 in view of the said Resolution -
Respondent no. 2, however, not reinstated in service - Writ 
petition filed by him allowed by High Court - On appeal, held: 
E 
Once the Scheduled Tribe certificate produced by respondent 
no.2 was invalidated by the Caste Scrutiny Committee, his 
appointment became void from the beginning - The void 
appointment could not have been validated by the 
Government -However, on peculiar facts, it would be harsh 
F 
to direct the termination of respondent no.2 since he is in 
service till date after the impugned judgment was rendered 
by High Court - Since no post belonging to SBC category is 
available with appellant, in interest of justice, Government 
directed to create supernumerary post to accommodate 
G 
respondent no. 2 with liberty to get the SBC Caste Certificate 
produced by him verified through the Caste Scrutiny 
Committee - Consequential directions given. 
Respondent no. 2 was appointed as a temporary 
127 
H 
128 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2010] 5 S.C.R. 
A Assistant Teacher in the Scheduled Tribes category, 
subject to verification of his tribe claim. The tribe 
Certificate produced by respondent no. 2 was forwarded 
for verification to the Scheduled Tribe Caste Scrutiny 
Committee, which found the said certificate to be invalid. 
B Consequently the services of respondent no.2 were 
terminated. 
Subsequently, Respondent No.2 applied to the 
Government to reinstate him in service claiming that he 
belongs to S.B.C.(Special Backward Class) category and 
C should be granted protection of Government Resolution 
dated June 15, 1995, which inter alia, specified the Castes 
considered as SBC. The Government addressed a letter 
to the appellant stating that even if the certificate 
indicating that respondent no.2 belongs to Scheduled 
D Tribes was invalidated by the Scrutiny Committee, he 
would be entitled to get protection in service in view of 
Government Resolution dated June 15, 1995 because he 
_had submitted a validity certificate indicating that, he 
belongs to Special Backward Class, and accordingly 
E directed the appellant to take necessary action in the 
matter. lnspite of the protection given by the Government, 
respondent no.2 was not reinstated in service. Therefore, 
he filed writ petition challenging the order terminating his 
services, which was allowed by the High Court. Hence 
F the present appeal. 
· 
Partly allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1.1. The well settled principle of law is that 
once the certificate indicating that a person belongs to 
G Scheduled Tribe is invalidated by the Caste Scrutiny 
Committee, his appointment becomes void from the 
beginning. The void appointment could not have been 
validated by the Government by addressing a 
communication to the appellant. The case of the appellant 
H before the High Court was that from the quota made 
CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, ZILLA PARISHAD v. 
129 
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA 
available to Special Backward Class (SBC) candidates, 
A 
the post was filled up and no vacant post \'Yas available. 
There·Jpon, the High Court directed the appellant to place 
a staffing pattern including the sanctioned posts available 
and the occupation thereof by different candidates. In 
view of the above mentioned direction given by the High 
B 
Court, the appellant furnished necessary particulars by 
filing reply. In the reply it was pointed out that the 
Education Officer, Primary, Z.P. had informed the 
appellant that in the category of Secondary School 
Teachers, there were four posts reserved for S.B.C. and c 
all of them were filled up. Though these particulars were .. 
placed before the High Court by way of reply filed on 
behalf of the app

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