THE CHIEF REGIONAL OFFICER THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO LTD versus PRADIP AND ANR

Citation: [2020] 3 S.C.R. 459 · Decided: 27-01-2020 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: D.Y. CHANDRACHUD · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
459
THE CHIEF REGIONAL OFFICER
THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO LTD
v.
PRADIP AND ANR
(Civil Appeal No 742 of 2020)
JANUARY 27, 2020
[DR DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD AND
K. M. JOSEPH, JJ.]
Service Law – False representation and appointment to a
reserved post – The first respondent was appointed by the appellant
on the basis of a claim that he belonged to a Scheduled Tribe, namely,
the Dhangad Community- However, record showed that he belonged
to the Dhangar Community (a nomadic tribe) – The High Court by
order dated 11.07.2016 issued a direction to the effect that the
services of the first respondent were liable to be protected – The
Respondent relied upon a circulars dated 08.04.2019 and
20.06.2019 issued by the Department of Revenue, Central Board
of Direct taxes – Both Circulars have relied upon the Judgments of
a two-Judge Bench of this Court in SG Barapatre v. Shri Ananta
Gajanan Gaiki and Gajanan Marotrao Nimje v. The Reserve Bank
of India – On appeal , held: Both the Judgments i.e. Barapatre and
Nimje relied on by the respondent were prior to the decision of the
three Judge Bench in Chairman and Managing Director, Food
Corporation of India v. Jagdish Balaram Bahira – Both Barapatre
and Nimje are decisions of a two judge Bench and do not lay down
any principle of law contrary to the binding three Judge Bench
decision in FCI – Neither the DOPT circular dated 08.04.2019 nor
the circular dated 20.06.2019 of the Department of Revenue can
depart from the principles laid down in FCI – The circulars, hence
only applied to the peculiar facts noted in Barapatre and Nimje –
In FCI, it was held that once it was found that candidate had
obtained admission upon a false representation to belong to the
reserved category, the appointment would be vitiated by fraud and
would be void ab initio – Therefore, the impugned Judgment of the
High Court dated 11.07.2016, set aside.
[2020] 3 S.C.R. 459
459
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
460
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2020] 3 S.C.R.
The first respondent was appointed as an Assistant by the
appellant based on a claim that he belonged to a Scheduled Tribe,
namely, the Dhangad Community. As the record shows, he
belongs to the Dhangar Community (a nomadic tribe) and not to
the Dhangad Community (listed as a Scheduled Tribe). The
Scrutiny Committee concluded that there was no merit in the
claim of the first respondent of belonging to the Dhangad
Scheduled Tribe. Aggrieved, the first respondent filed the writ
petition before the High Court. The High Court, by its judgment
and order dated 11.07.2016 issued a direction to the effect that
the services of the first respondent were liable to be protected.
Hence, the present civil appeal.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1. In Barapatre, the appellants were in appeal
before this Court against the orders passed by the Nagpur Bench
of the Bombay High Court. The High Court noted that the
appellants had declined to subject themselves to a scrutiny of
their caste certificate, as a consequence of which their services
were directed to be discontinued. When the matter travelled in
appeal before this Court, a two judge Bench of this Court, by its
judgment dated 10 October 2018, noted that the same issue had
earlier been considered by the High Court, leading to a judgment
dated 1 November 2012 in Writ Petition No 5198 of 2009 and
connected matters. This Court noted in its decision in Barapatre
that Food Corporation of India challenged the order of the High
Court dated 1 November 2012 before this Court in Special Leave
Petitions under Article 136 of the Constitution which were
dismissed on 12 April 2013. Review petitions were also dismissed
on 26 February 2014. The challenge by the Food Corporation of
India to the order of the Bombay High Court had been rejected
on 12 April 2013 and as a result of the decision inter partes, the
order of the High Court had attained finality. Consequently, this
Court clarified that only the employees covered by the earlier
judgment shall be entitled to the benefits which have been granted
specifically by the High Court. [Paras 12 and 13][467-G; 468-A-
B, E; 469-A-B]
2. It was in the peculiar background, which was noted by
this Court, that the protection of services was granted in Nimje.
Again, it is necessary to note that this Court has noted that the
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
461
common judgment of the High Court dated 1st November, 2012
was challenged before this Court and both the Special Leave
Petitions and the Review Petitions were also dismiss

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