JAYASHREE versus THE DIRECTOR COLLEGIATE EDUCATION

Citation: [2022] 2 S.C.R. 734 · Decided: 22-02-2022 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K.M. JOSEPH · Disposal: Disposed off

cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
734
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 2 S.C.R.
[2022] 2 S.C.R. 734
734
JAYASHREE
v.
THE DIRECTOR COLLEGIATE EDUCATION
(Civil Appeal No. 1559 of 2022)
FEBRUARY 22, 2022
[K. M. JOSEPH AND HRISHIKESH ROY, JJ.]
Karnataka Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Other
Backward Classes (Reservation of Appointments, etc.) Act, 1990 –
s.4(4) – Respondent-State terminated the services of the appellant
on the basis that she was found to be not belonging to the Scheduled
Tribe community to which she had applied and was given
appointment – Held: s.4(1) of the Act declares that appointment in
respect of reserved categories are to be made as provided therein –
s.4(4) of the Act provides that appointment made in contravention
of s.4(1) is ‘voidable’ – The expression ‘voidable’ in the context
and object of the Act and more importantly constitutional value of
equality would mean that appointments to the reserved vacancies
are meant only for those who are deserving by being members of
the said community alone – Under the Rules, an applicant for
appointment seeking reservation is expected to make an application
for obtaining a validity certificate of his caste certificate – As
appellant secured a caste certificate prior to the enactment of the
Act, it required validation under r.7 – Thus, appointment of the
appellant was clearly tentative and dependent on her producing
the proof of her valid certificate – There is no dispute that the aspect
of the appellant not belonging to the Scheduled Tribe community
had attained finality for the reason that though the appellant
challenged the order of the Scrutiny Committee before the Divisional
Commissioner, he had affirmed the order and in fact, there was no
challenge to these decisions holding that the appellant did not belong
to the Scheduled Caste Community – Once it is found that the
appellant did not belong to the Scheduled Tribe community, it
attracted s.4(4) – The appointment became voidable – Giving an
opportunity to the appellant under these circumstances when the
finding as regards her not belonging to the Scheduled Tribe became
final, would have been a futile exercise – Her continuance in service
would deprive a member of the Schedule Tribe Community of an
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
735
opportunity which was usurped by the appellant – Thus, order of
termination was not bad in law – However, interest of justice would
require that the amounts sought to be recovered shall not be
recovered from the appellant – Service law – Karnataka Scheduled
Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes (Reservation
of Appointment, etc.) Rules, 1992 – r.7.
Disposing of the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1. It is true that section 4(1) of the Act declares
that appointment in respect of reserved categories are to be made
as provided therein. The impact of a contravention is dealt with
in section 4(4). It may be that the appointment made in
contravention of Section 4(1) of the Act has to be avoided. But
the mere fact that the Law Giver has used the word ‘voidable’,
cannot, in the context, detract from the gravity of the matter.
The matter is not to be judged from the need for an act by the
employer. The scheme of the Act appears to be in tune with the
Constitutional mandate which is to reserve appointments in favour
of the deserving categories as are covered under Articles 341
and 342 of the Constitution, inter alia. In other words,
appointments are to be made inter alia in favour of the Scheduled
Tribes. If an appointment is made in contravention of the said
mandate then it is, no doubt, declared voidable. The expression
‘voidable’ in the context of the Act and the object of the Act and
more importantly, and the constitutional value of equality would
mean that appointments to the reserved vacancies are meant
only for those who are deserving by being members of the said
community alone. If any person other than a member of the
reserved community is appointed, it would clearly constitute an
infringement of the rights of the genuinely deserving members
of the said Scheduled Tribes. Furthermore, even the applicants
applying under the general categories could be adversely affected.
[Paras 7, 9][740-B; 741-E-H; 742-A]
2. Under the Rules, an applicant for appointment seeking
reservation is expected to make an application for obtaining a
validity certificate of his caste certificate. In this case, the appellant
secured a caste certificate from a Tehsildar under an Executive
JAYASHREE v.THE DIRECTOR COLLEGIATE EDUCATI

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