UNION OF INDIA & ORS. versus S. KRISHNAN & ANR.

Citation: [2008] 2 S.C.R. 604 · Decided: 08-02-2008 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Case Allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

f 
[2008] 2 S.C.R. 604 
A 
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 
~ ..... 
II. 
S. KRISHNAN & ANR. 
(Civil Appeal No. 1103 of 2008) 
B 
FEBRUARY 8, 2008 
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND S.H. KAPADIA, JJ.] 
t-
Service Law: Termination - Appointment of employee 
.._ 
claiming to be member of Scheduled tribe-Malayalee 
c Community - Termination of, for producing false community 
certificate - Subsequently employee's case that he belonged 
to Lambadi Community, a Scheduled Tribe, relying on the letter 
of Director of Welfare Officer - Accepted by High Court and 
\ 
termination order set aside - Sustainability of - Held: Not 
D · sustainable since employee applied as a member of 
Scheduled Tribe, Malayalee Community and was appointed 
_..._ 
in respect of a post earmarked for Scheduled Tribes -
Community certificate was false - More so, Lambadi was not 
).. 
part of Scheduled Tribes - High Court wrongly relied on the 
E letter as it was in the nature of recommendation and did· not 
relate to any entry in the Constitution (Scheduled Castes and 
Scheduled Tribes) Order, 1950. 
The respondent was appointed in the Railway 
Department. He claimed to be a member of Scheduled 
F Tribe, Malayalee Community. He was removed from 
> 
service for producing a false community certificate. 
Meanwhile, respondent filed an application for declaration 
that he belonged to the Malayalee Community. The 
respondent challenged the termination otder and order 
G of compulsory retirement was passed. Respondent then 
filed a writ petition on the ground that he belonged to 
Hindu Lambadi caste which is a Scheduled Tribe. High 
>,-
Court relying on the letter of Director of District Welfare 
that Lambadi is a Scheduled Tribe in the State of Tamil 
H 
604 
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. v. S. KRISHNAN & ANR. 
605 
.... ~ 
Nadu heid that the respondent belonged to Scheduled A 
Tribe and set aside the termination order. Hence the 
present appeal. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1.1 It appears from the appointment order of B 
the respondent that he was appointed in respect of a post 
~ 
earmarked for Scheduled Tribes. With regard to the 
.) 
respondent's plea that he was appointed as a general 
category candidate and not a member of the Scheduled 
Tribe, if in reality the respondent was appointed in respect c 
of a post belonging to the general category, there was no 
need for filing a Community Certificate. Further, there was 
also no need for seeking a declaration that he belongs to 
the Malayalee Community. From the records produced it 
is crystal clear that the respondent applied as a member 0' 
of the Scheduled Tribe claiming to be a member of the 
.J.. 
Malayalee Community. The Community Certificate 
produced was found to be bogus. That essentially is the 
..... 
end of the matter. His further stand that though he may 
not belong to the Malayalee Community, he belongs to 
Lambadi Community is really of no consequence. The E 
document referred to by the counsel for the State giving 
details of the communities belonging to the Scheduled 
Castes and Scheduled Tribes clearly falsifies the claim of 
the respondent that Lambadi Community w~s a part of 
the Scheduled Tribes. The document was issued under F 
the Constitution (Scheduled Castes and Scheduled 
Tribes) Order, 1950 as amended subsequently. [Para 7] 
[608-F, G; 609-A, 8, C] 
1.2 There is no scope for making any alteration by 
way of addition or deletion from the Entry made in the G 
...... 
Constitution Order. The High Court clearly misdirected 
itself on relying on the letter of the Director of Welfare 
' 
Office. A bare look at it goes to show that the same was 
~ 
really not relatable to any Entry in the Constitution 
(Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes) Order but at H 
-). 
606 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2008] 2 S.C.R. 
A the most was in the nature of a recommendation. Thus, 
~ ·~ 
the order of High Court is unsustainable and is set aside. 
" 
[Paras 8 and 9] [609-0, E, F] 
Pa/ghat Ji/la Thandan Samudhaya Sarriithi and Anr. 
B 1994 SCC 359; State of Maharashtra vs. Mi/ind and Ors. 2000 
(5) Suppl. SCR 651 - relied on. 
CIVILAPPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1103 
.t 
of 2008. 
c 
From the Judgment and Order dated 17.08.2005 of the 
High Court of Judicature at. Madras in Writ Petition No. 24911 
of 2001. 
Ashok Bhan, T.A. Khan, B.K. Prasad and D.S. Mahra for 
the Appellants. 
D 
A.K. Ganguli and R. Sudaravardan, P.R. Kovilan 
Poongkuntran, Naresh Kumar, S. Joseph Aritstotle, S. Prabhu 
..A. 
Ramasubramanian 

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