GEETA versus STATE OF M.P. AND ORS.

Citation: [2007] 6 S.C.R. 1081 · Decided: 16-05-2007 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: H.K. SEMA · Disposal: Dismissed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

.. 
• 
GEETA 
A 
v. 
STA TE OF M.P. AND ORS. 
MAY 16, 2007 
[H.K. SEMA AND V.S. SIRPURKAR, JJ.] 
B 
Service Law: 
Appointment on post reserved for Scheduled Tribe-Candidate 
appointed as Deputy Superintendent of Police on the basis of Scheduled C 
Tribe Certificate produced by her showing her to belong to Majhi Tribe-
On inquiry her services sought to be terminated on the ground that she did 
not belong to the Tribe-High Level Caste Screening Committee found her 
not belonging to Majhi Tribe but to Nishad "Mal/ah" Caste, a Backward 
Caste-Held, candidate was granted opportunity by the Screening D 
Committee and also by Supreme Court, but she failed to establish her 
case-:--BY such appointments constitutional guarantee reserving post for 
deserving candidates is frustrated-This must be stopped-Principles of 
natural justice-Socia/ Status Certificate. 
Social Status Certificate: 
E 
Scheduled Tribe 'Majhi'-Certificate issued showing the candidate 
belonging to 'Maj hi' Tribe-High Level Caste Screening Committee holding 
the appellant not belonging to Majhi Tribe but to Caste known as Nishad 
_ "Mal/ah", a backward caste-Held, appellant failed to establish herself as 
belonging to Majhi Tribe. 
F 
Appellant was appointed as a Deputy Superintendent of Police on the 
basis of the Scheduled Tribe Certificate, dated 29.8.1986 granted to her by 
the District Magistrate Satna, Madhya Pradesh, showing that she belonged 
to Majhi Tribe, which was a Scheduled Tribe. The Scheduled Tribe Certificate 
dated 3.11. 77 issued to her father was cancelled subsequently and a writ G 
petition in that regard was pending in the Lucknow Bench of the Allahabad 
High Court. On a complaint, an inquiry was initiated against her and by an 
order dated 9.4.2001 her services were sought to be terminated on the 
ground that the caste certificate issued to her father was cancelled. The 
IMI 
H 
1082 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(2007) 6 S.C.R. 
A High Level Caste Screening Committee examined her case and recorded a 
} 
" 
finding that she did not belong to Maj hi Tribe, but her caste was Nishad 
"Mallah" which was a Backward Caste. The appellant then filed a writ petition 
before the High Court, and the same hi:ving been dismissed, she filed the 
instant appeal. 
B 
It was contended for the appellant that the findings of the High Level 
Caste Screening Committee were vitiated for non-observance of principles of 
natural justice as it did not offered her any opportunity to prove her case. 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
.)-
c 
HELD: 1.1. Show Cause notice was issued to the appellant on 28.7.2003. 
It is not her case that she has not received the show cause notice. She was 
asked to appear along with all necessary documents to prove her caste before 
; 
the High Level Caste Screening Committee. Thereafter the next date was fixed 
for hearing on which date the impugned order was passed. Therefore, adequate 
D opportunity has been afforded to the appellant of personal hearing as well as 
to produce documents in support of her caste. It is sufficient compliance of 
principles of natural justice. [Para 15, 16 and 17] [1086-C, D, E, F] 
1.2. Even in the midst of hearing of the instant appeal, time was granted 
-< .. 
to the appellant to produce any document to establish her tribe as 'Majhi', but 
E she utterly failed. This would clearly show that the Tribe Certificate showing 
the appellant as belonging to Majhi Tribe obtained on 29.8.1986 on the basis 
of Tribe Certificate of her father obtained on 3.11.1977 is without any 
documentary proof and is a manufactured document 
[Para 21] [1087-C, DJ 
F 
Kumari Madhuri Patil v. Addi. Commissioner, Tribal Development, 
[1994) 6 sec 241, distinguished. 
y 
•· 
2. Here is a case where an undeserved candidate occupies the post of 
deserving candidate in the reserved quota. In such a situation, the deserving 
G 
candidate is pushed out of the queue and the constitutional guarantee 
reserving the post for the deserving candidate is frustrated. This must be 
stopped with a strong hand. [Para 22] [1087-F-G] 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 6055 of2005. 
.... -
H 
From the Judgment and Order dated 25.8.2004 of the High Court of 
GEETA v. STATEOFM.P. [H.K. SEMA,J.] 
1083 
• 
~ 
Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur in W.P. No. 28707/2003 . 
A 
Shail Kumar Dwivedi and G.V. Rao for the Appellant. 
S.K. Dubey, Sr. Adv., B.S. Banthia, Vikas Upadhyay, Shakil Ahmed Syed 
for the Respondents. 
B 
The Judgment of the Court was
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.