UNION OF INDIA versus DATIATRAY S/O NAMDEO MENDHEKAR & ORS.

Citation: [2008] 2 S.C.R. 1096 · Decided: 15-02-2008 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K.G. BALAKRISHNAN · Disposal: Case Allowed
Cited by 2 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

l 
[2008] 2 S.C.R. 1096 
A 
UNION OF INDIA 
~ 
v. 
DATIATRAY S/o NAMDEO MENDHEKAR & ORS. 
(Civil Appeal No. 1639 of 2008) 
B 
FEBRUARY 15, 2008 
(K.G. BALAKRISHNAN, CJI, C.K. THAKKER 
AND R.V. RAVEENDRAN, JJ.) 
Service Law 
r 
c 
.I 
Reservation In Appointment - Appointment on post 
reserved for Scheduled Tribes - On basis of Caste Status 
Certificate produced by candidate showing him belonging to 
Halba Tribe- On inquiry certificate found to be false - Removal 
from service - High Court accepting the case of false 
D certificate, but directing the candidate to continue in service, 
albeit not as a Scheduled Tribe - During pendency of Writ 
--+ 
Petition resignation by candidate - Held : When a person . 
secures employment by making a false claim regarding caste/ 
tribe, he deprives a legitimate candidate belonging to 
E scheduled caste/tribe, of employment - In such a situation, 
the proper course is to cancel the employment obtained on 
the basis of false certificate so that the post may be filled up 
by a rightful candidate - The High Court failed to appreciate 
the ratio of Mi/ind - Having held that employee had falsely 
F claimed that he belonged to a Scheduled Tribe, it wrongly 
,,._ 
extended .him the benefit of continuing in employment -
However, as the employee had submitted his resignation even 
before the writ petition was decided, and has not attended to 
duty from 13. 10. 2004, his terminal benefits, if any due to 
G him, may be settled. It is however made clear that he will 
not be entitled to any pensionary benefit. (paras 5, 7 and 8) 
-,<( 
[1099-E, F, 1100-E, F, G] 
Bank of India v. Avinash D. Mandivikar [(2005) 7 SCC 
690) and Additional General Manager Human Resources, 
H 
1096 
J, 
UNION OF INDIA v. DATTATRAY S/o NAMDEO 
1097 
MENDHEKAR & ORS. [K.G. BALAKRISHNAN, CJI.] 
--4 
):· 
Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd. v, Suresh Ramkrishna Burde A 
((2007) 5 sec 336] - relied on. (para 6) 
State of Maharashtra v. Mi/ind ((2001) 1 SCC 4] - held 
inapplicable 
CIVILAPPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1639 B 
·--; 
of 2008. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 6.4.2005 of the High 
Court of Judicature at Bombay, Nagpur Bench, Nagpur in W.P. 
No. 1176/1999. 
c 
R. Mohan ASG, Indra Sawhney and Sushma Suri for the 
Appellant. 
V.N. Raghupathy, D.S. Mahra, Neera Gupta, Jaishree Wad, 
Ashish Wad, Neeraj Kumar (for Mis. J.S .. Wad & Co.,) S.S. 
Shinde and Asha G. Nair for the Respondents. 
D 
-~· 
The Order of the Court was delivered by 
K.G. BALAKRISHNAN, CJI. 1. Leave granted. Heard 
learned counsel for both sides. 
2. The first respondent, who claimed that he belonged to a E 
Scheduled Tribe - Halba, was appointed as an Assistant 
Professor of Psychiatry in G. B. Pant Hospital, New Delhi, in a 
post reserved for Schedule Tribes, vide O.M dated 21.6.1990 
--..,.· 
of the Ministry of Health & Family Welfare, subject to caste status 
verification. He joined duty on 20.9.1990. One of the conditions 
F 
subject to which he was offered appointment was that if any 
declaration given or information furnished by him was proved 
to be false, he will be liable for removal from service and other 
action which the government may deem appropriate. His claim. 
that he belonged to a Scheduled Tribe was referred for G 
,• 
verification. The Tehsildar Mohadi, on verification, sent a 
communication on 9.5.1991 that first respondent did not belong 
to Halba community. As first respondent questioned the report 
of the Tehsildar and asserted that he belonged to Halba tribe, 
his claim was referred to the Tribal Research & Training Institute, H 
)__ 
1098 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2008) 2 S.C.R. 
A Pune for verification on 16.10.1992. On 6.3.1999, the Scrutiny 
~ 
I , 
Committee for verification of certificates of Schedule Tribes, 
informed the Ministry that the respondent did not belong to the 
Halba Tribe (ST). The Ministry, therefore, issued an OM dated 
15.3.1999 calling upon the first respondent to show cause why 
B his services should not be terminated for falsely claiming to 
belong to Halba Tribe. The first respondent challenged the 
r· 
decision of the Screening Committee in W.P. No.1176/1999. 
The High Court by judgment dated 6.4.2005 upheld the order 
dated 6.3.1999 of the Scrutiny Committee invalidating the first 
c respondent's claim that he belonged to 'Halba' tribe, and 
directed that the first respondent will not be entitled to any of the 
benefits as a member of the Scheduled Tribe, from the date of 
its decision. Th
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.