LexSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS. versus SANJAY K. NIMJE
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
/\ 1 A STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS.- < v. SANJAY K. NIMJE JANUARY 16, 2007 B [S.B. SINHAAND MARKANDEY KATW, JJ.] Maharashtra Scheduled Caste, Scheduled Tribes, De-notified Tribes ) ~ (Vimukta Jatis), Nomadic Tribes, Other Backward Classes and Special Backward Category (Regulation of Issuance and Verification of) Caste c Certificate Act, 2000---ss. 6, 7 and JO-Government service-On the basis ~ of r.aste certificate showing the procurer thereof belonging to Scheduled Tribe-Verification of Certificate-Certificate invalidated finding that he °'!• did not belong to Scheduled Tribe-Invalidation challenged-High Court on the basis of Government resolution protected the service-On appeal D held: Government Resolution was not applicable to the employee as the pre-condition thereof was not fulfilled-The Act being the legislative act would prevail over any Government Resolution-In view of the provisions '"'-· of the Act, invalidation justified-Service Law-Reservation-Con~titution of India, 1950---Articles 341 and 342. E Constitution of India, 1950---Article 136-Discretionary jurisdiction under-Exercise of-Held: Exercise of discretionary jurisdiction would depend upon facts and circumstances of each case. Respondent was appointed on 29.6.1995 in State Government services. F He claimed to be belonging to 'Halba' community, a scheduled tribe. On ,.. doubt, the caste certificate procured by the respondent, was referred to Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee for verification. He was found to be belonging to 'Koshti' caste which came within the category of 'special backward class' and not within the scheduled tribe category. His caste certificate wP..s invalidated. G Respondent filed Writ Petition. He accepted the findings of the Caste Scrutiny Committee but claimed protection. The petition was allowed by High Court observing that though the respondent was appointed on 29.6.1995, ~ ... but since he was selected on 15.6.1995, he was entitled to protection under H a Government Resolution whereby the services of persons who were %0 _, , •. I STATEv. SANJAYK.NIMJE 961 appointed prior to 15.6.1995 were protected. Hence the present appeal. Allowing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1.1. Respondent admittedly was appointed on 29.06.1995. Although he might have been selected on 15.06.1995, ex facie, the said Government Resolution dated 15.06.1995 would have no application in his B case. Once the respondent became disentitled to obtain the benefit of the said Government Resolution dated 15.06.1995, Maharashtra Scheduled Caste, Scheduled Tribes, De-notified Tribes (Vimukta Jatis), Nomadic Tribes, Other Backward Classes and Sp_ecial Backward Category (Regulation of Issuance and Verification of) Caste Certificate Act, 2000 C will apply in his case. The 2000 Act being a legislative Act would prevail over any Government Resolution. A Government Resolution may be beneficient in nature but it is well-settled that a benefit under a Government Resolution cannot be extended to a person who does not satisfy the conditions precedent thereof. [Paras 14, 15 and 16) [967-G-H, 968-A) 1.2. Thus, it is a clear case where the provisions of the Act would apply. There is no reason as to why the statutory provisions should not be directed to apply in the instant case. It may be that at one point of time, keeping in view the stand taken in particular case, some indulgence had D been shown. Indulgence might have been shown to the students or who were E found to have acted bona fide but the same would not mean that this Court would pass an order contrary to or inconsistent with the provisions of a legislative act. [Para 23) [969-D-EJ Kumari Madhuri Patil and Anr. v. Additional Commissioner, Tribal Development and Ors., [1994] 6 sec 241, referred to. F 1.3. In any event, the effect of the judgment of this Court as also the provisions of a statute in the light of the constitutional provisions contained in Articles 341 and 342 of the Constitution of India cannot be diluted by reason of a Government Resolution or otherwise.[Para 171 [968-B) 2. Ordinarily a person, who has obtained appointment on the basis of a false certificate, cannot retain the said benefit. [Para 19) [968-F) State of Maharashtra and Ors. "·Ravi Prakash Babula/sing Parmar G and Anr., [2006) 10 SCALE 575 : [2007) 1 SCC 80, referred to. H \ ··- ·~- 962 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007) I S.C.R. I A Bank of India and
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.