Supreme Court Upholds Termination of Employment Based on False Caste Certificate: The Oriental Insurance Co Ltd vs. Pradip (2020)

Date of the Judgment: 27 January 2020

Citation: Civil Appeal No 742 of 2020 (Arising out of SLP(C) No 21619 of 2017)

Judges: Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, J and K M Joseph, J

Can an individual retain employment secured using a false caste certificate? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this critical question in a case involving an employee who claimed to belong to a Scheduled Tribe. The court’s decision clarifies that such appointments are void from the beginning. This judgment emphasizes the importance of verifying caste certificates and upholds the principle that benefits obtained through false claims cannot be retained. The judgment was delivered by a two-judge bench comprising Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, J and K M Joseph, J.

Case Background

The first respondent, Pradip, was appointed as an Assistant by the appellant, The Oriental Insurance Co Ltd, based on his claim that he belonged to the Dhangad Scheduled Tribe. However, it was later discovered that he belonged to the Dhangar community, a nomadic tribe not listed as a Scheduled Tribe in Maharashtra. Pradip had submitted a caste certificate dated 17 August 1984, issued by the Executive Magistrate, Hingna, to support his claim.

In 2011, the appellant requested Pradip to submit his caste certificate. Subsequently, on 14 July 2011, the appellant contacted the issuing authority, who, on 9 May 2014, stated that the certificate was not registered in their records. In August 2014, Pradip was asked to submit a fresh certificate. Instead, Pradip submitted a letter dated 14 August 2014 from the issuing authority stating that the certificate was issued from their office. On 3 August 2015, Pradip applied for verification of his caste certificate to the Scrutiny Committee. He formally submitted his application on 15 February 2016. On 25 April 2016, the Scrutiny Committee invalidated his claim, noting that Pradip was aware he belonged to the Dhangar community and not the Dhangad Scheduled Tribe. The Committee also observed that the documents submitted pertained to the Dhangar community, not the Dhangad Scheduled Tribe.

Timeline:

Course of Proceedings

Aggrieved by the Scrutiny Committee’s order, Pradip filed a writ petition before the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Bench at Nagpur. He sought protection of his services based on a Full Bench decision of the High Court in Arun Sonone v State of Maharashtra, and challenged the Scrutiny Committee’s order. The High Court, on 11 July 2016, directed that Pradip’s services be protected, citing the Arun Sonone judgment.

Legal Framework

The case primarily revolves around the consequences of submitting a false caste certificate to secure employment. The Supreme Court considered the implications of such actions in light of previous judgments and constitutional principles. The key issue is whether an appointment obtained using a false claim of belonging to a reserved category can be protected.

Arguments

Appellant’s Arguments:

• The appellant, represented by Mr. Dinesh Mathur, argued that the High Court’s judgment was incorrect because the Full Bench decision in Arun Sonone, which the High Court relied on, had been overruled by a three-judge bench of the Supreme Court in Chairman and Managing Director, Food Corporation of India v Jagdish Balaram Bahira (FCI).
• The appellant contended that the FCI judgment clearly stated that if a candidate is appointed to a reserved post based on a false claim of belonging to that group, the appointment is void from the beginning.
• The appellant argued that the High Court erred in applying the Arun Sonone judgment, which had been specifically disapproved by the Supreme Court.

Respondent’s Arguments:

• The respondent, represented by Mr. Soumya Chakraborty, relied on an Office Memorandum dated 8 April 2019 issued by the Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions, Department of Personnel and Training.
• The respondent also cited a circular dated 20 June 2019 issued by the Government of India, Department of Revenue, Central Board of Direct Taxes.
• These circulars, based on the judgments in S G Barapatre v Shri Ananta Gajanan Gaiki (Barapatre) and Gajanan Marotrao Nimje v The Reserve Bank of India (Nimje), suggested that employees in similar situations should be placed in the general category and their services should be protected.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court:

The Supreme Court did not explicitly frame issues in a separate section. However, the core issue was:

• Whether the services of an employee, who secured employment based on a false caste certificate, can be protected, particularly in light of the Supreme Court’s judgment in FCI which overruled Arun Sonone.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

Cases:

• Arun Sonone v State of Maharashtra (2015) 1 Mh LJ 457 – Full Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay.
• Chairman and Managing Director, Food Corporation of India v Jagdish Balaram Bahira (2017) 8 SCC 670 – Supreme Court of India.
• Kavita Solunke v. State of Maharashtra, (2012) 8 SCC 430 – Supreme Court of India.
• Shalini v. New English High School Assn., (2013) 16 SCC 526 – Supreme Court of India.
• Ganesh Rambhau Khalale v. State of Maharashtra, 2009 SCC OnLine Bom 20 – High Court of Judicature at Bombay.
• Ramesh Suresh Kamble v. State of Maharashtra, 2006 SCC OnLine Bom 1078 – High Court of Judicature at Bombay.
• State of Maharashtra v. Milind, (2001) 1 SCC 4 – Supreme Court of India.
• S G Barapatre v Shri Ananta Gajanan Gaiki, Civil Appeal Nos 10387-10388 of 2018 – Supreme Court of India.
• Gajanan Marotrao Nimje v The Reserve Bank of India, Civil Appeal Nos 10396 of 2018 – Supreme Court of India.

Legal Provisions:

• Article 142 of the Constitution of India
• Article 226 of the Constitution of India

Judgment

How each submission made by the Parties was treated by the Court?

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• The Supreme Court held that the judgment in Chairman and Managing Director, Food Corporation of India v Jagdish Balaram Bahira [(2017) 8 SCC 670]* was the binding precedent, and it clearly stated that appointments based on false caste claims are void from the beginning.
• The Court held that the Full Bench judgment of the Bombay High Court in Arun Sonone v State of Maharashtra [2015 (1) Mh LJ 457]* was specifically overruled by the Supreme Court in FCI.
• The Court distinguished the cases of S G Barapatre v Shri Ananta Gajanan Gaiki [Civil Appeal Nos 10387-10388 of 2018]* and Gajanan Marotrao Nimje v The Reserve Bank of India [Civil Appeal Nos 10396 of 2018]* stating that these were based on specific facts where the High Court’s order had attained finality before the FCI judgment.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the principle that appointments obtained through false claims of belonging to a reserved category are void from the beginning. The Court emphasized the need to protect the rights of genuine members of reserved communities and to ensure that benefits intended for them are not usurped by ineligible individuals. The Court also emphasized that administrative circulars cannot override judicial decisions and constitutional principles.

Logical Reasoning:

The Court considered the specific facts of the case and the legal precedents, particularly the judgment in FCI. The Court rejected the argument that the employee’s services should be protected based on the circulars and the judgments in Barapatre and Nimje, stating that those cases were based on different factual scenarios where the High Court’s order had attained finality before the FCI judgment. The Court emphasized that the FCI judgment was a binding precedent and that administrative circulars cannot override judicial decisions.

The Supreme Court’s reasoning was based on the principle that a person cannot retain the benefits of a false claim. The Court quoted from the FCI judgment, stating: “The withdrawal of benefits, either in terms of the revocation of employment or the termination of an admission was hence a necessary corollary of the invalidation of the claim on the basis of which the appointment or admission was obtained.” The Court also noted that “Protecting the services of a candidate who is found not to belong to the community or tribe for whom the reservation is intended substantially encroaches upon legal rights of genuine members of the reserved communities whose just entitlements are negated by the grant of a seat to an ineligible person.” The Court further emphasized that “No government resolution or circular can override constitutional or statutory norms.”

Key Takeaways

• Appointments obtained using false caste certificates are void from the beginning.
• Employees cannot retain benefits secured through false claims of belonging to a reserved category.
• Administrative circulars cannot override judicial decisions and constitutional principles.
• The judgment reinforces the importance of verifying caste certificates.
• This decision protects the rights of genuine members of reserved communities.

Directions

The Supreme Court set aside the impugned judgment and order of the High Court dated 11 July 2016. Consequently, the Writ Petition filed by the first respondent was dismissed.

Specific Amendments Analysis

There were no specific amendments discussed in this judgment.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that an appointment obtained through a false claim of belonging to a reserved category is void ab initio and cannot be protected. This judgment reinforces the principle established in FCI and clarifies that administrative circulars cannot override judicial decisions. It also clarifies that the judgments in Barapatre and Nimje were based on specific facts and cannot be applied universally to protect appointments obtained through false caste claims.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s judgment in The Chief Regional Officer, The Oriental Insurance Co Ltd vs. Pradip and Anr upholds the principle that appointments secured using false caste certificates are invalid from the outset. The Court set aside the High Court’s order, reinforcing the binding nature of the FCI judgment and clarifying that administrative circulars cannot override judicial decisions. This ruling ensures that benefits intended for reserved communities are not usurped by ineligible individuals, thereby protecting the rights of genuine members of those communities.