LexG.M. INDIAN BANK versus R. RANI & ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A G.M. INDIAN BANK r'· v. R. RANI & ANR. DECEMBER 6, 2007 B [B.N. AGRA WAL AND P.P. NAOLEKAR, JJ.] ,.... Constitution of India, 1950-Articles 366(25) and 342- Verification of caste of employees appointed on basis of caste c certificates-A District Level Committee cancelled the caste certificates-Consequently, employees terminated-High Court holding that constitution of Committee not as per Kumari Madhuri Patil's case-Committee's Order and termination order quashed- Directions passed to properly constituted Committee to hold fresh D enquiry-Held: Order of High Court justified-Directions given in Kumari Madhuri Patil's case not merely guidelines-Social status certificate. The respondents were appointed in the banks, on basis of Social E Status Certificate. Subsequently, it was found that the respondent did not belong to the particular community as claimed by them. A District Level Committee conducted an enquiry and on finding that respondents did not belong to the particular community, cancelled the certificates. The respondents challenged the decision of the F District Level Committee. The State Level Committee upheld the same. Meanwhile, the respondents were terminated from service. ~- The respondents filed writ petitions challenging the order of the District Level Committee. The High Court held that the constitution of the Committee was not in accordance with the directions contained in the case of *Kumari Madhuri Patil. It quashed the order passed G by the Committee canceling the caste certificates and also the termination orders. The High Court directed the properly constituted Committee to hold fresh enquiry. The directions were passed for reinstating the employees. Hence, the instant appeals by the Indian Bank as well as State Bank of India. H 1024 1026 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 12 S.C.R. A the order of reinstatement, is squarely concluded by a 3-Judge Bench of this Court in the case of ***Sudhakar Vithal Kumbhare in which on the ground of very same infirmity in the constitution of the Committee, this Court directed to reinstate the government servant till the matter was decided by the Committee afresh. Thus, there is B no substance in the submission.[Para 9] [1030-D-E] ***Sudhakar Vithal Kumbhare v. State of Maharashtra and Ors., [2004] 9 sec 481, relied on. 1.5. The District Level Committee, now duly constituted by the c State Government, is directed to decide the matter afresh in accordance with law. [Para 10] [1030-F] D E F G H CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 54 of 2005. From the Judgment and Order dated 25.3.2003 of the High Court of Judicature at Madras in W.A. No. 2969/2002. WITH C.A. Nos. 59-61, 55-57 of 2005, 50, 51 of 2006, 5661, 5663, 5664, 5665, 5666, 5667 and 5668-5669 of 2007. R. Mohan, A.S.G., Raju Ramachandran, L.N. Rao, V.K. Rao, Madhu Sikri, Saket Sikri, Saurabh Suman Sinha, Rishad Ahmad Chowdhury, V.G. Pragasam, Joseph Aristotle, S. Prabhu Ramasubramanian, V. Vijayshankar, S. Arvindh, Rakesh K. Sharma, D. Verma, Senthil Jagadeesan and Aparna Bhat for the appearing parties. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by B.N. AGRAWAL, J. 1. Leave granted. 2. The private respondents in these appeals were appointed in the banks against the vacancies of Scheduled Tribe as they claimed themselves to be members ofKonda Reddy Community which is a Scheduled Tribe. Most of them were appointed by the Indian Bank but some of them by the State Bank of India Subsequently it transpired that they did not belong to Konda Reddy Community, as such an enquiry was directed which was t ~· '~· ' I· ~ G.M. INDIAN BANK v. R. RANI 1025 Dismissing the appeals, the Court A HELD: 1.1 In the case of *Kumari Madhuri Patil the Court gave directions for constitution of Committee of three officers, as mentioned therein, for verifying the caste certificates. The law laid down in the case of *Kumari Madhuri Patil was reiterated times without number not only by 2-Judge Benches but even by a 3-Judge B Bench of this Court. Thus, it cannot be said thatthe directions given in the case of *Kumari Madhuri Patil were simply guidelines. (Para 6) (1029-B-D] *Kumari Madhuri Patil and Anr. v. Addi. Commissioner. Tribal c Development and Ors., [1994) 6 SCC 241; Kumari Madhuri Patil and Anr. v.Addl. Commr., Tribal Development, Thane and Ors., (1997] 5 SCC 437; Baswant v. State of Maharashtra and Ors., JT (2000) 10 SC 280; Director of
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.