THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, BHILAI STEEL PLANT, BHILAI versus MAHESH KUMAR GONNADE & ORS.

Citation: [2022] 6 S.C.R. 979 · Decided: 11-07-2022 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: SANJAY KISHAN KAUL · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
979
THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER,
BHILAI STEEL PLANT, BHILAI
v.
MAHESH KUMAR GONNADE & ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 4990 of 2021)
JULY 11, 2022
[SANJAY KISHAN KAUL AND HRISHIKESH ROY, JJ.]
Service Law: Termination – Challenge to, by Management
trainee in PSU-respondent no. 1 who secured employment to a post
earmarked for the reserved category when he did not belong to the
Halba ST category – Division Bench set aside the termination order
holding that he would be entitled to the benefits of seniority and
back wages – On appeal held: When a person secures appointment
on the basis of a false certificate, he cannot be permitted to retain
the benefit of wrongful appointment – As an OBC person, the
respondent no.1 could not have been permitted to continue in a
post meant for the ST category – High Court should not have granted
relief by invoking the principles of natural justice, and by adverting
to the ratio in Milind’s case which was not applicable to the
respondent no.1, and was eventually clarified in Dattatray’s case –
High Court erred by granting relief to the respondent no.1 – However,
the emoluments paid to him should not be recovered – Furthermore,
respondent no.1 not entitled to any pensionary benefit by virtue of
his wrongful appointment.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.1 The pronouncement in Dattatray’s case clearly
suggests that the High Court misapplied the ratio in Milind’s case,
since the appointment of the respondent no. 1 as Management
Trainee (Technical), cannot be compared to the education and
appointment of a medical doctor. [Para 12][986-C-D]
1.2 The High Court disregarded the Government’s circular
dated 11.01.2016 whereby the previous circular (01.10.2011) was
cancelled with the specific observation that Milind’s judgment
was clarified subsequently in Dattatray’s case, by declaring that
[2022] 6 S.C.R. 979
979
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
980
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 6 S.C.R.
when a person secures appointment on the basis of a false
certificate, he cannot be permitted to retain the benefit of wrongful
appointment. In fact, necessary actions were expected to be taken
against those who secured unmerited appointment on the basis
of false caste certificate. Pertinently, the respondent no.1 could
have (but never did) challenge, the circular dated 11.01.2016
which required the Government to cancel such unmerited
appointment. [Para 14][987-C-E]
1.3 The respondent no.1 secured employment to a post
earmarked for the reserved category, and there is a clear finding
by the Caste Scrutiny Committee that the respondent no.1 does
not belong to the Halba ST category. The Halba ST certificate
(11.09.1987) on the basis of which the respondent No.1 secured
employment was cancelled by the Committee on 15.07.2015, and
such finding of the Caste Scrutiny Committee remain
unchallenged till date. As a consequence, the respondent no. 1 is
disentitled to claim any equitable relief by virtue of his long
service, particularly when he, despite the notice, avoided the
proceedings of the Caste Scrutiny Committee. Also conspicuously,
he does not challenge the adverse finding against him. Moreover,
it is not the claim of the respondent no.1 that he belongs to the
ST category nor did he ever challenge the clarificatory circular
(11.01.2016) which cancels the earlier circular (01.10.2011). In
such circumstances, an opportunity to the respondent no.1 would
be futile because he could not have claimed that he belongs to
the ST category since his Halba caste certificate (issued on
11.09.1987) stood cancelled by the Committee. Consequently,
as an OBC person, the respondent no.1 could not have been
permitted to continue in a post meant for the ST category. The
High Court, therefore, should not have granted relief by invoking
the principles of natural justice, and by adverting to the ratio in
Milind’s case which was not applicable to the respondent no.1,
and which eventually was clarified in Dattatray’s case. [Para
15][987-E-H; 988-A-B]
1.4 The High Court erred by granting relief to the
respondent no.1 who is disentitled to claim any right to continue
in a post earmarked for the ST category. The ratio in Milind’s
case was incorrectly applied in the impugned judgment since it is
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
981
not the case of the respondent no.1 that he belongs to the ST
category. The High Court instead of granting equitable relief to
the respondent no. 1, should have held that he cannot continue
to usurp the benefits meant for a ST category person

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