KAVITA SOLUNKE versus STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS.

Citation: [2012] 7 S.C.R. 251 · Decided: 09-08-2012 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: T.S. THAKUR · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

(2012] 7 S.C.R. 251 
KAVITA SOLUNKE 
v. 
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS. 
(Civil Appeal No. 5821 of 2012) 
AUGUST 9, 2012 
[T.S. THAKUR AND FAKKIR MOHAMED IBRAHIM 
KALIFULLA, JJ.] 
Service Law - Appointment in Scheduled Tribe category 
A 
B 
- Protection of continuance in service - Entitlement to -
C 
Appqintment of appellant in an aided school in Maharashtra 
against a reserved post of teacher meant for Scheduled Tribe 
candidates - Appellant had claimed to be a member of the 
'Halba' Scheduled Tribe - 10 years later, caste credentials of 
appellant verified by the Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny 
D 
Committee - School record of appellant revealed that 
appellant's father .was a 'Koshti' which caste was not 
recognised as a Scheduled Tribe in Maharashtra - Scrutiny 
Committee declared that appellant was a 'Koshti' and not a 
'Halba' - Consequent termination of appellant from service by 
E 
school authority - Challenge to - Appellant contended that her 
appointment having attained finality, it could not have been 
set aside and that even when she was found to be a 'Koshti' 
and not a 'Halba' by the Scrutiny Committee, she was entitled 
to protection of continuance in service - Reliance placed by 
F 
appellant upon the Constitution Bench decision of Supreme 
Court in Milind's case - Held: The Supreme Court had in 
Mi/ind's case noticed the fact that appointments and 
admissions were made for a long time treating 'Koshti' as a 
Scheduled Tribe and directed that such admissions and G 
appointments wherever the same had attained finality will not 
be affected - 'Halba-Koshti' was treated as 'Halba' even before 
the appellant joined service as a teacher - Also, appellant had 
not fabricated or falsified the particulars of being a Scheduled 
251 
H 
252 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2012] 7 S.C.R. 
A Tribe with a view to obtain undeserved benefit in the matter 
of appointment as a teacher - No reason why benefit of 
protection against ouster from service should not be extended 
to appellant subject to the usual condition that she shall be 
reinstated if already ousted - However, for the period the 
B appellant had not served the institution (aided school) she 
shall not be entitled to claim any salary/back wages -
Constitution (Scheduled Tribes) Order, 1950 - Constitution of 
India, 1950 - Articles 341 and 342. 
Claiming to be a member of the 'Halba' Scheduled 
C Tribe, the appellant applied to an aided school in 
Dongaon, Maharashtra against a reserved post of teacher 
meant for Scheduled Tribe candidates. She was 
appointed on the said post and confirmed in service in 
due course. A decade after her initial appointment, the 
D caste credentials of appellant were verified by the 
Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny Committee. In 
course of inquiry, the school record of the appellant was 
looked into which showed that the appellant's father was 
a 'Koshti' by caste which caste was not recognised as a 
E Scheduled Tribe in Maharashtra. The Committee declared 
that the appellant was a 'Koshti' and not a 'Halba' and 
accordingly cancelled her Caste Certificate. This led to 
the school passing an order whereby the services of the 
appellant were terminated with immediate effect. 
F Aggrieved, the appellant filed appeal before the School 
Tribunal which was dismissed. The appellant then 
preferred a writ petition which was dismissed by the High 
Court. 
G 
In the instant appeal, the appellant contended that 
her appointment having attained finality, it could not have 
been set aside and that even when she was found to be 
a 'Koshti' and not a 'Halba' by the Scrutiny Committee, 
she was entitled to protection of continuance in service. 
In this regard, she relied upon the decision of the 
H Constitution Bench of this Court in Milind's case. 
KAVITA SOLUNKE v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA 
253 
AND ORS. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
A 
HELD: 1.1. In Milind's case, the Constitution Bench 
of this Court was examining whether Koshti was a sub-
tribe within the meaning of Halba/Halbi as appearing in 
the Constitution (Scheduled Tribes) Order, 1950. This 
8 
Court held that the Courts cannot and should not expand 
their jurisdiction while dealing with the question as to 
whether a particular caste or sub-caste, tribe or sub-tribe 
is included in any one of the Entries mentioned in the 
Presidential Orders issued under Articles 341 and 342. 
C 
This Court declared that the holding of an inquiry or 
production of any evidence to decide or dec

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