Jharkhand High Court
Meetu Passi vs Life Insurance Corporation Of India ... on 12 June, 2020
Author: Anubha Rawat Choudhary
Bench: Anubha Rawat Choudhary
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P.(S) No. 5488 of 2019
Meetu Passi, Aged about - 52 years, D/o Late Surjit Kumar
Pasi, House no. 8, Asha Shree Garden, Morabadi, P.O.-
Morabadi, P.S.- Bariatu, Dist Ranchi ... ... Petitioner
Versus
1. Life Insurance Corporation of India through its Chairman,
having its office at 5th Floor, West Wing, Yogakshema,
Jeevan Bhima Marg, P.O.P.S.- Nariman Point, Mumbai-
400021
2. Zonal Manager, East Central Zone Office, LIC of India,
having its office at Jeevandeep Exhibition Road, P.O.P.S.
Exhibition Road, Dist Patna
3. Senior Divisional Manager, LIC of India, Jamshedpur
Divisional Office, Jeevanprakash, Bistupur P.O.P.S. Bistupur
Dist East Singhbhum
4. Braj Kishore Narayan, aged about 57 years, S/o Lt. Dr. Ramji
Sahay, resident of Pani Tanki Road, Tungri Toli, PO & PS-
Argora, District- Ranchi
... ... Respondents
---
CORAM :HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY
---
For the Petitioner : Mr. Rajiv Ranjan, Senior Advocate Mr. Shresth Gautam, Advocate Mr. Rahul Dev, Advocate Mr. Om Prakash, Advocate Mr. Yogendra Yadav, Advocate For the Resp.- LIC : Mr. Sachin Kumar, Advocate For the Resp. No. 4 : Mr. Anil Kumar Sinha, Senior Advocate Mr. Kumar Harsh, Advocate
---
C.A.V. on 05.06.2020 Pronounced on 12/06/2020
1. Heard Mr. Rajiv Ranjan, learned Senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner along with advocates on record.
2. Heard Mr. Sachin Kumar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Life Insurance Corporation of India.
3. Heard Mr. Anil Kumar Sinha, learned Senior counsel along with Mr. Kumar Harsh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent no. 4 (intervenor).
24. This writ petition has been filed for quashing the order of termination dated 30.07.2019 (Annexure- 19) as well as the appellate order dated 24.09.2019 (Annexure- 21) and also for a declaration that once a fresh caste-certificate has been issued in favour of the petitioner by the competent authority, the same is required to be considered and taken note of.
Arguments of the petitioner
5. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the services of the petitioner have been terminated without following the due procedure of law and without any enquiry dehors the Life Insurance Corporation of India (Staff) Regulation, 1960 and without considering the declaration of caste of the petitioner vide caste certificate dated 07.08.2018 issued by the State of Punjab. The petitioner is also seeking a declaration that once a fresh caste-certificate has been issued in favour of the petitioner by the competent authority, the same is required to be considered and taken note of.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that on 28.08.1989, the petitioner was appointed as Apprentice Development Officer at Life Insurance Corporation of India under Reserved category (Scheduled Caste) and the caste certificate which was submitted by the petitioner was bearing number 3097/89 dated 04.04.1989 issued by the District Welfare officer, Ranchi. He submits that one criminal case being RC 20(S)/92(R) was instituted wherein charge-sheet was submitted in the year 2009. A copy of the said charge-sheet was forwarded to the District Welfare Officer, Ranchi by the Senior Divisional Manager, Life Insurance Corporation of India at Jamshedpur pursuant to which, the District Welfare Officer, Ranchi issued memo no. 1746(ii) dated 25.05.2010 cancelling the caste certificate issued to the petitioner as back as on 04.04.1989.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that it has been recorded in the aforesaid cancellation memo dated 3 25.05.2010 about the conclusion of the charge-sheet of the said criminal case. It has been alleged in the cancellation memo that the petitioner, being a general category candidate, dishonestly applied for the post of Apprentice Development Officer in Life Insurance Corporation of India, a post exclusively advertised for Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe candidate claiming that she belongs to Scheduled Caste category and obtained the said job in Life Insurance Corporation of India by falsely claiming herself as Scheduled Caste candidate and by dishonestly concealing the fact that she belongs to "Khatri" caste of general category.
8. Learned counsel further submits that pursuant to the cancellation of the caste certificate of the petitioner and on the same allegation, charge sheet -cum- show cause notice dated 24.06.2010 was issued to the petitioner by the Life Insurance Corporation of India wherein same allegation was made that the petitioner being a general category candidate, applied for the post of Apprentice Development Officer exclusively advertised for Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe candidate on the strength of certificate dated 04.04.1989 and the caste- certificate was cancelled by the District Welfare Officer, Ranchi vide memo dated 25.05.2010. The petitioner was asked to show- cause within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of the said charge sheet - cum- show cause notice as to why the penalty of dismissal from service proposed to be imposed be not imposed upon the petitioner.
9. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in the aforesaid background, the petitioner had filed a writ petition being W.P.(C) No. 2760 of 2010 and vide order dated 10.08.2010 passed in the writ petition , it was indicated that the writ petition was confined to the validity of aforesaid order dated 25.05.2010 passed by the District Welfare Officer and aforesaid charge sheet- cum- show cause dated 24.06.2010 issued by the 4 Senior Divisional Officer, Life Insurance Corporation of India. By the same order, interim order was passed that till further order, operation of the aforesaid two impugned orders shall remain stayed with liberty to the District Welfare Officer, Ranchi and respondent- Life Insurance Corporation of India to proceed in accordance with law, if so advised. The learned counsel further submits that a reply to the charge sheet -cum- show cause notice was filed by the petitioner vide reply dated 13.07.2010, and the writ petition remained pending in the High Court.
10. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that one interlocutory application being I.A. No. 97 of 2013 was filed in aforesaid writ petition W.P.(C) No. 2760 of 2010 seeking vacation of the aforesaid interim order dated 10.08.2010 and the said interlocutory application was disposed of considering the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in (1994) 6 SCC 241 "Kumari Madhuri Patil and Another Vs. Addl. Commissioner, Tribal Development and Others". While disposing of the said interlocutory application, the writ petitioner as well as the respondents were directed to approach the committee constituted by the State of Jharkhand vide notification dated 08.07.2004 for taking appropriate decision whether the petitioner was entitled for issuance of caste certificate on the basis of caste which she claims to belong and whether she is covered under the presidential notification as such to seek the status of the Scheduled Caste in the State of Jharkhand or not and whether her caste certificate was fake. The aforesaid interlocutory application was disposed of vide order dated 24.07.2013 and the writ petition remained pending.
11. The learned counsel for the petitioner then submits that ultimately the Caste Scrutiny Committee conducted an enquiry and found that the petitioner originally belongs to State of Punjab and is a permanent resident of the said State.
5Accordingly, the committee held that she is not entitled for issuance of caste certificate from the State of Jharkhand. It further held that in Jharkhand, the caste "Passi" comes under the Scheduled Caste category. The Caste Scrutiny Committee also held that the District Welfare Officer had informed the said authority that the caste certificate was issued by their office in favour of the petitioner, but the evidence on the basis of which it was issued was not available in their office. Thus, the Caste Scrutiny Committee ultimately did not pronounce upon the caste of the petitioner on the ground that the caste certificate could have been issued only from the State of Punjab. The aforesaid order of the Caste Scrutiny Committee was challenged by the petitioner in another writ petition being W.P.(C) No. 4922 of 2015 .
12. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that ultimately, the writ petition being W.P.(C) No. 2760 of 2010 was decided with W.P.(C) No. 4922 of 2015 vide judgment dated 25.07.2018 and the findings of this Court is mentioned in paragraph 26 of the judgement. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that para 26(viii) clearly held that by virtue of the order passed by the Caste Scrutiny Committee, State of Jharkhand, the said authority has not pronounced that the petitioner does not belong to Passi community of the State of Punjab or she is not entitled for caste certificate from the State of Punjab. In para 26(ix), it was held that even if the caste certificate of the father of the petitioner is under cloud, that does not disentitle the State of Punjab from issuance of caste certificate to the petitioner upon proper enquiry. He submits that the judgment of this Court was passed by indicating that the determination as to whether the petitioner belongs to Passi community or not is to be done as per the circular issued on 22nd March 1977 by Union of India read with mandate of the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of 6 Kumari Madhuri Patil (Supra). Ultimately, the case was dismissed with a liberty to the petitioner to move the appropriate authority in the State of Punjab for issuance of caste certificate to the petitioner after due enquiry/verification in accordance with law. He submits that the judgement was dictated and pronounced in the open court in presence of all the parties.
13. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that immediately upon pronouncement of the aforesaid judgement dated 25.07.2018 the petitioner approached the appropriate authority in the State of Punjab. After due enquiry, the petitioner was issued the caste certificate dated 07.08.2018 indicating that the petitioner actually belongs to the Scheduled Caste category "Passi". Learned counsel submits that the said caste certificate was filed by the petitioner vide representation dated 30.10.2018 before the authority of Life Insurance Corporation of India who had issued the aforesaid charge sheet
- cum- show cause notice dated 24.06.2010. The learned counsel further submits that upon receipt of a copy of the caste certificate of the petitioner issued from the State of Punjab , the authorities of Life Insurance Corporation of India vide letter dated 19.11.2018 enquired from the Tehsildar concerned of the State of Punjab regarding the correctness of the caste certificate issued to the petitioner. In response thereto, the authority of the State of Punjab issued letter dated 10.12.2018 verifying the caste certificate and certifying that the petitioner belongs to the category "Passi" community which comes under Scheduled Caste category and the caste certificate issued to the petitioner is genuine. Similar information was also issued to the Life Insurance Corporation of India in response to their application under Right to Information. The learned counsel submits that after getting the caste certificate verified from the State of Punjab and after getting the response in favor of the petitioner, 7 the authorities of Life Insurance Corporation of India passed the final order of dismissal dated 30.07.2019 by totally ignoring the caste certificate issued to the petitioner by the State of Punjab by simply mentioning that the writ petition being W.P.(C) No. 2760/ 2010 has been ultimately dismissed by the High Court and the order dated 25.05.2010 cancelling the caste certificate by the District Welfare Officer, Ranchi becomes operative. Consequently, it held that the appointment of the petitioner based on caste certificate dated 04.04.1989 is ab-initio void and consequently dismissed the petitioner from services without recording anything about the caste certificate issued by the State of Punjab dated 07.08.2018. Challenging the impugned order of dismissal dated 30.07.2019, the learned counsel submits that on the one hand the caste certificate issued by the State of Punjab certifying the actual caste of the petitioner has been ignored and on the other hand, no hearing as such was given to the petitioner.
14. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that against the order of dismissal dated 30.07.2019, the petitioner filed an appeal before the Zonal Manager of LIC of India vide memo of appeal dated 07.08.2019, which was again dismissed vide the other impugned order dated 24.09.2019. The learned counsel submits that as per the appellate order, the reason mentioned is that the Hon'ble High Court had granted liberty to the petitioner to move before the appropriate authority of State of Punjab for issuance of caste certificate to the petitioner after due enquiry/verification in accordance with law, but the High Court had neither given any direction to the petitioner to submit the caste certificate obtained from State of Punjab before Life Insurance Corporation of India nor there is any direction to the respondents in this regard and considering this aspect of the matter, the authority refused to consider the caste certificate issued to the petitioner from State of Punjab.
815. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the entire basis of the charge sheet- cum- show cause notice was that the petitioner being a general category candidate had misrepresented herself as a Scheduled Caste category candidate on the basis of strength of caste certificate dated 04.04.1989 issued by the District Welfare Officer, Ranchi, which was subsequently cancelled. He submits that there is no allegation of fraud or misrepresentation so far as the petitioner is concerned. The petitioner had applied for caste certificate before an authority who was competent to issue caste certificate in the erstwhile state of Bihar and the authority had granted the caste certificate. There is no malice, collusion, ill-will or fraud committed by the petitioner or any other authority and it appears that even the authority who issued the caste certificate was under the impression that he was competent to do so. He also submits that the competence of the authority was questioned on the ground that he could not have issued caste certificate to the petitioner whose place of origin is the State of Punjab. The learned counsel submits that the fact that the petitioner belongs to a Scheduled Caste category was ultimately verified by the State of Punjab, and accordingly the petitioner has been issued the caste certificate in the year 2018 which is in consonance with the order passed by this Court and accordingly, the caste status of the petitioner should be given due effect to by the authorities of Life Insurance Corporation of India.
16. The learned counsel for the petitioner thereafter submits that merely because in the aforesaid judgment passed by this Court in the earlier round of litigation , nothing was ultimately mentioned in connection with the charge sheet- cum-show cause notice, the same does not mean that the consequence flowing out of the aforesaid judgement and consequently the caste certificate issued from the State of Punjab can be nullified 9 by not giving effect to the same. The learned counsel submits that the caste of the petitioner having been duly declared by issuance of a caste certificate by the State of Punjab certainly means that the petitioner was throughout belonging to the caste "Passi" though declared by the State of Punjab in the year 2018. Accordingly, he submits that the very basis of issuance of charge sheet- cum- show cause that the petitioner belongs to a general category, is nullified. He also submits that the order of cancellation of the caste certificate of the petitioner by the District Welfare Officer, Ranchi dated 25.05.2010 was also on the ground that the petitioner belongs to general category and that a false caste certificate was issued to the petitioner on 04.04.1989. The learned counsel submits that the entire basis of the charge sheet -cum- show cause having been taken away, the authorities of Life Insurance Corporation of India ought to have considered the subsequent issuance of caste certificate by the State of Punjab and ought to have considered and accepted the same while considering the show cause reply filed by the petitioner.
17. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in such circumstances, both the original order as well as the appellate order are fit to be set-aside and the matter should be remitted back to the authority to consider the caste certificate which has been issued to the petitioner by the State of Punjab. Arguments of the respondent -Life Insurance Corporation of India.
18. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent - LIC of India, on the other hand, submits that a detailed counter-affidavit has been filed in the present case and he also refers to the aforesaid judgment passed by this Court on 25.07.2018 in the previous round of litigation. The learned counsel submits that although the charge sheet- cum- show cause dated 24.06.2010 was challenged (as per order dated 10 10.08.2010 passed in W.P.(C) No. 2760 of 2010 - Annexure-9) before this Court in W.P.(C) No. 2760 of 2010, but ultimately no finding has been recorded in connection with the said charge sheet- cum- show cause notice and the writ petition was dismissed. In such circumstances, the LIC of India had no option but to proceed with the charge sheet- cum- show cause notice and as the caste certificate issued by the District Welfare Officer, Ranchi was cancelled vide order dated 25.05.2010, which was the basis for grant of employment to the petitioner under Scheduled Caste category , therefore, the Life Insurance Corporation of India has rightly dismissed the petitioner as the said caste certificate dated 25.05.2010 was void ab-initio.
19. Learned counsel for the respondent- LIC of India has also referred to para 26(iv) (last portion) of the judgment dated 25.07.2018 passed in W.P.(C) No. 2760 of 2010 with W.P.(C) No. 4922 of 2015 and submits that a finding has been recorded by this Court in the said case that the caste certificate which was issued to the petitioner in the year 1989 was wrongly issued and by wrongful and reckless exercise of power by the authority concerned amounting to complete non-application of mind. In para 26(v) of the said judgment dated 25.07.2018, it has been recorded that the caste certificate which was issued to the petitioner does not indicate as to whether the petitioner belongs to the State of Bihar or to the State of Punjab and it appears that neither it was disclosed nor such enquiry was made as to whether she belongs to the State of Bihar or any other State. The learned counsel submits that in the aforesaid view of the matter, there was no occasion for the respondent- Life Insurance Corporation of India to take into consideration the caste certificate issued to the petitioner by the State of Punjab on 07.08.2018 while considering the reply filed by the petitioner to charge sheet- cum- show cause dated 24.06.2010. He submits that the caste certificate issued in the year 1989, on the basis of 11 which the petitioner had taken employment in Life Insurance Corporation of India, was of no consequence and accordingly, the employment itself was void ab-initio .
Arguments of the Respondent no. 4 (intervenor)
20. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the intervenor - respondent no. 4 at the outset, refers to para 6 of the counter- affidavit filed by the Life Insurance Corporation of India dated 19.11.2019 to submit that Regulation 49 of Life Insurance Corporation of India (Staff) Regulations, 1960 provides that an employee whose appeal has been rejected by the appellate authority may approach the Chairman of the Corporation by way of filing a memorial. He submits that accordingly the petitioner has got an alternative remedy of filing memorial before the Chairman of the Corporation in terms of Regulation 49 of the Staff Regulations and therefore, the writ petition is not fit to be entertained at this stage on account of availability of alternative remedy against the impugned orders.
21. The learned counsel for the respondent no. 4 further submits that the petitioner was appointed on 28.08.1989 on the basis of the caste certificate issued to her on 04.04.1989 and ultimately, the said caste certificate was found to be false, therefore, the impugned order of dismissal of the petitioner dated 30.07.2019 does not call for any interference by this Court. He further submits that the subsequent caste certificate which has been issued to the petitioner by the State of Punjab has no bearing in the matter as the order of appointment dated 28.08.1989 cannot be sustained on the basis of the new caste certificate issued in favour of the petitioner on 07.08.2018 by the State of Punjab. The learned counsel also submits that although the show-cause notice as well as the cancellation of the caste certificate issued to the petitioner by the District Welfare Officer, Ranchi were under challenge before this Court in the previous writ petition being WP(C) No. 2760 of 2010 and 12 ultimately this Court in the previous writ petition did not set- aside any of them, thus, the basis of appointment of the petitioner in the year 1989 does not exist and there was no occasion for the concerned authorities of the Life Insurance Corporation of India to consider and take into account the caste certificate issued by the State of Punjab on 07.08.2018.
22. The learned counsel thereafter submits that without prejudice to the aforesaid submissions, the issuance of the caste certificate to the petitioner dated 07.08.2018 is itself not reliable and creates a doubt in view of the fact that the order was passed by this Court on 25.07.2018 and as per the photocopy of the certified copy of the order, it was received on 27.11.2018 and the caste certificate from State of Punjab was issued on 07.08.2018 itself. He further submits that the very fact that in such a short span of time, the caste certificate has been issued to the petitioner indicates that no proper enquiry has been conducted in the State of Punjab with regard to the caste of the petitioner. The learned counsel refers to the caste certificate and submits that the caste certificate itself has a disclaimer by stating that the document is a digitally signed certificate and does not require hand written signature and further that the responsibility of verification of the document before accepting the same for any legal purpose would rest with the institution or organization or company or any other entity where the document is produced. The learned counsel submits that the caste certificate has been issued with a caveat and accordingly, otherwise also, the same could not have been relied upon by the petitioner for the purposes of considering the reply to the show cause issued to the petitioner in connection with her appointment as back as in the year 1989.
23. The learned counsel for the respondent no. 4 further submits that the caste certificate which was issued to the petitioner as back as in the year 1989 was itself void ab-initio 13 and consequently, the appointment obtained by the petitioner on the basis of such caste certificate was also void ab initio . He also submits that receipt of caste certificate subsequently in the year 2018 does not revive or give any legal sanctity to the appointment obtained by the petitioner in the year 1989 on the basis of void ab initio caste certificate issued in the year 1989 by the District Welfare Officer, Ranchi who was not at all competent to issue the caste certificate. The learned counsel referred to the impugned order dated 30.07.2019 dismissing the petitioner and submits that the authority was of the clear view that upon dismissal of the writ petition being W.P.(C) No. 4922 of 2015 vide order dated 25.07.2018, the order of cancellation of the caste certificate of the petitioner by the District Welfare Officer, Ranchi dated 25.05.2010 became operative . As a result of which the appointment of the petitioner based on caste certificate dated 04.04.1989 became ab initio void and consequently, the petitioner was dismissed from service. He submits that the said finding recorded in the impugned order dated 30.07.2019 is in accordance with law and does call for any interference.
24. The learned counsel has referred to a judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of "R. Vishwanatha Pillai v. State of Kerala and Others" reported in (2004) 2 SCC 105 (para 15 and 19) and has submitted that appointment obtained on the basis of a false caste certificate is void since very inception and the facts of the case before the Hon'ble Supreme Court were similar to that of the present case.
25. The learned Senior counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent no. 4 submits that the caste certificate which has been issued to the petitioner by the State of Punjab has not been issued by the competent authority and accordingly, the same is of no consequence .
1426. The learned counsel also submits that after the last date of hearing, the respondent no. 4 has challenged the caste certificate issued to the petitioner by the State of Punjab before the competent authority of the State of Punjab and he has filed a supplementary affidavit to that effect, a copy of which has been served upon the learned counsel for the petitioner. Upon this the learned counsel for the Life Insurance Corporation of India submits that the supplementary affidavit has not been served upon him.
Arguments of the petitioner by way of rejoinder.
27. In rejoinder, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in (2004) 2 SCC 105 (supra) does not apply to the facts and circumstances of this case. In the said judgment, the candidate did not belong to the caste for which a false and fraudulent caste certificate was obtained and ultimately, upon report of the caste scrutiny committee when the caste certificate was cancelled, the appointment of the candidate in the reserved post was said to be void since inception. He further submits that in the present case the petitioner had applied for caste certificate before District Welfare Officer, Ranchi who had issued the caste certificate to the petitioner. There is no allegation of any fraud against the petitioner or the District Welfare Officer, Ranchi and ultimately, this Court simply found that the petitioner, being originally from State of Punjab, could not have obtained the caste certificate from the then State of Bihar in the year 1989 and accordingly, granted liberty to the petitioner to approach the competent authority in the State of Punjab for the purposes of issuance of caste certificate. Consequently, the petitioner had approached the State of Punjab and after due verification the caste status of the petitioner has been declared by the competent authority. He submits that once the caste status certificate is issued by the 15 competent authority, there can be no doubt that the certificate of caste is only a declaration of the caste of the petitioner which the petitioner has acquired by birth and it cannot be said that the petitioner acquires the particular caste on the date when the caste certificate from the State of Punjab was issued. He submits that the District Welfare Officer, Ranchi, before whom the petitioner had initially applied for caste certificate could have refused to issue the same on the basis of any circular which was issued by the Government of India, but no such refusal was made by the said authority and there was no fault on the part of the petitioner. He relies upon the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in the case of "Ram Kumar Gijroya Vs. Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board and Another" reported in (2016) 4 SCC 754 (para 16) to submit that the caste is acquired by birth and caste certificate is merely a declaration. He submits that the action of the petitioner is absolutely bona fide and the petitioner was ultimately found to be belonging to Scheduled Caste, the dismissal of the petitioner cannot be sustained in the eyes of law.
28. The learned counsel further submits that the judgement passed in the earlier round of litigation was dictated in open court and the petitioner approached the competent authority at Punjab immediately after pronouncement of the judgement, therefore the date of issuance of the certified copy of the earlier judgement has no relevance at all.
Findings of this Court
29. Before dealing with the merits of the case, it would be proper to deal with the plea of alternative remedy of approaching the Chairman of Life Insurance Corporation of India against the appellate order which is also impugned in the present case. This Court finds that the entire dispute revolves around the interpretation and the consequence of the judgement dated 25.07.2018 passed by this Court in the earlier 16 round of litigation and hence this Court considers it proper to entertain the writ petition.
30. It is not in dispute that the petitioner was appointed as Apprentice Development Officer by virtue of letter of appointment dated 28.08.1989 issued by the respondent Life Insurance Corporation Of India. On the strength of caste certificate issued to the petitioner by District Welfare Officer, Ranchi dated 04.04.1989, the petitioner was appointed by Life Insurance Corporation in the reserved category of Scheduled Caste community namely 'Passi'. On 26.10.1992 a complaint was filed by the Central Bureau of Investigation (C.B.I.) Ranchi on the alleged ground that the caste certificate of the petitioner was fake and thereafter upon thorough enquiry, C.B.I. submitted final form on 12.7.1993. However, subsequently the matter was reopened at the instance of private respondent and ultimately charge sheet was submitted by the C.B.I. on 26.10.2009. On the basis of the charge-sheet of C.B.I., District Welfare Officer, Ranchi, issued an order dated 25.05.2010 cancelling the caste certificate of the petitioner alleging that the petitioner belongs to 'Khatri' caste of general category and not to the Scheduled Caste category 'Passi'.
31. As a sequel and consequence of cancellation of caste certificate of the petitioner, a charge sheet- cum- show cause notice dated 24.06.2010 was issued to the petitioner by the Life Insurance Corporation of India again alleging that the petitioner being a general category candidate had obtained employment on the strength of caste certificate claiming herself to be a Scheduled Caste candidate.
32. Under the aforesaid circumstances the petitioner filed a writ petition before this Court being W.P. (C) No. 2760 of 2010. In the said writ petition the order cancelling the caste certificate of the petitioner by the District Welfare Officer, Ranchi as well as the charge sheet- cum- show cause notice dated 24.06.2010 17 issued by the Life Insurance Corporation of India were under challenge. Vide order dated 24.07.2013 this Court observed that the whole controversy in the writ petition is relating to cancellation of caste certificate issued by District Welfare Officer, Ranchi vide order dated 25th May 2010. This Court found that in terms of the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of "Kumari Madhuri Patil and Another vs. Additional Commissioner Tribal Development And Others" reported in (1994) 6 SCC 241 the State government has constituted Caste Scrutiny Committee vide notification dated 08.07.2004 to make recommendation for issuance of caste certificate as also to enquire into the instances of issuance of fake caste certificates. In such circumstances, this Court vide order dated 24.07.2013 thought it proper to refer the matter to the Caste Scrutiny Committee constituted by the State of Jharkhand for taking appropriate decision on the point, "whether the petitioner was entitled for issuance of caste certificate on the basis of caste which she claims to belong, and whether she is covered under Presidential Notification as such to seek the status of scheduled caste in the State of Jharkhand or not, and whether her caste certificate was fake." However, the writ petition was kept pending awaiting the report of the caste scrutiny committee. Pursuant to the order dated 24.07.2013 the caste scrutiny committee prepared a report dated 24.11.2014 who ultimately did not decide the issue regarding caste of the petitioner and inter alia, observed as follows:
(a) The petitioner is permanent resident of Punjab as such caste certificate cannot be issued by the State of Jharkhand;
(b) The passi community comes in the Scheduled Caste community in the State of Jharkhand
(c) Caste certificate has not been found to be forged.
(d) As per the report of the District Welfare Officer, caste certificate was issued to the petitioner, but there is nothing on record, as to the basis on which the caste certificate was issued to the petitioner.18
33. The petitioner challenged the report of the Caste Scrutiny Committee dated 24.11.2014 in writ petition being W.P. (C) No. 4922 of 2015 and by the order of this Court, both the writ petitions were clubbed and directed to be heard together.
34. The specific case of the Respondent Life Insurance Corporation of India before this Court in the earlier round of litigation was that the Caste Scrutiny Committee of the State of Jharkhand does not have jurisdiction to examine the entitlement of the petitioner to receive the caste certificate in view of the circular issued by the Central Government that the caste certificate to an applicant who has migrated to another State can be issued on the basis of the caste certificate issued to the parents from the appropriate State. It was also submitted that the caste certificate of the father of the petitioner is in cloud, therefore the petitioner can certainly approach the State of Punjab for the purpose of issuance of caste certificate. It was also submitted that so far as the authorities of the State of Jharkhand are concerned, they cannot issue caste certificate to the petitioner and the caste certificate which was issued to the petitioner was itself in total disregards of the circular issued by the Union of India in this regard. Similar stand was taken by the private respondent (intervenor) in the earlier round of litigation. It was also submitted by the private respondent that one criminal case was instituted against private respondent by the petitioner stating herself as a scheduled caste and ultimately the criminal case has been dropped against the private respondent on the ground that she does not belong to the scheduled caste category.
35. The findings of this Court in the earlier round of litigation were recorded in para 26 of the judgement and some of the relevant portions are as under: -
(i) The matter regarding issuance of caste certificate to the scheduled caste and scheduled tribe relating to various states in India has been a matter of serious concern by the government of India and accordingly various circulars have been issued from time to time.19
........
(ii) Subsequently another circular dated 18th November 1982 was issued by the government of India which related to issuance of caste certificate who have migrated from one State to another for the purpose of education, employment etc. and were facing great difficulties in obtaining caste certificate from which State they have migrated. ...........
(iii) Similar circulars were issued vide subsequent circular dated 6th August 1984 which clarifies the status of a person be granted scheduled caste certificate from another state will continue to that of the original State. The only document which could have been recognised by the then State of Bihar, in Bihar was the caste certificate issued to petitioner's father/mother for the purpose of caste certificate to the petitioner from Bihar (now Jharkhand).
(iv) Admittedly in the year 1989 the petitioner did not have caste certificate of her father and from the records of the case and from own admission of the petitioner, the other documents which she had shown at the time of issuance of caste certificate to her, was taken back. Accordingly, no documents, even the application for issuance of caste certificate is not available with the authority who had issued caste certificate to the petitioner. One of the caste certificate which was relied upon by the petitioner was relating to one Divek Pasi, which in turn was issued by the authority of the State of Uttar Pradesh. This court is of the considered view that caste certificate of such person cannot determine the caste status of the petitioner, who admittedly originates from the state of Punjab, for the purpose of issuance of caste certificate from the state of Jharkhand. So far as issuance of caste certificate to a person from the State where he has migrated, the only document which was recognised was the caste certificate issued to father or mother of the candidate from the state of origin. In absence of this, caste certificate could not have been issued to the petitioner from the then State of Bihar (now Jharkhand) in the year 1989 in view of the aforesaid circulars issued by the union of India relating to issuance of caste certificate from the state in which any person has migrated. It further appears that there has been no enquiry whatsoever and there could not have been an enquiry in the State of Bihar in connection with caste status of the petitioner who originally belongs to the State of Punjab.
Accordingly, this court find that caste certificate which was issued to the petitioner in the year 1989 was wrongly issued and by wrongful and reckless exercise of power by the authority concerned, amounting to complete non-application of mind.
(v) This court also find that caste certificate which was issued to the petitioner also does not indicate as to whether she belongs to the State of Bihar or the State of Punjab and it appears that neither it was disclosed nor such enquiry was made as to whether she belongs to the State of Bihar or to any other State.
(vi) So far as impugned order is concerned, same is based on the charge sheet submitted by the C.B.I., although the submission of charge sheet may not be a ground for cancelling the caste certificate issued to anybody that too without giving any opportunity of hearing to the person, but in the instant case, it has come to light and as per the aforesaid findings , the caste certificate which was issued to the petitioner in the year 1989 was not in accordance with law and accordingly this court is of the considered view that the same cannot 20 be restored.
(vii) In the meantime,..........
From perusal of the circular issued in the year 1982 by the Central Government it is apparent that there is mandate that the person who is migrated from one State to another, the prescribed authority of the State has been empowered to issue caste certificate on the basis of caste certificate issued to the applicant's father or mother from the origin state, except where the prescribed authority feels that detailed enquiry is necessary through the state of origin for issuance of caste certificate. Meaning thereby, even if the caste certificate of the father of the petitioner was available, it was still open to the authority, to refuse the issuance of caste certificate, if a detailed enquiry was required. The caste scrutiny committee in the instant case found that the caste certificate was issued to the father of the petitioner was itself under cloud and at the same was not available at the time of issuance of caste certificate to the petitioner in the year 1992 ,therefor the authority held that the petitioner is not entitled for issuance of caste certificate from the state of Jharkhand.
(viii) By virtue of this impugned order passed by the caste scrutiny committee, state of Jharkhand, the said authority has not pronounced that the petitioner does not belong to the "passi" community of State of Punjab or she is not entitled for caste certificate from the State of Punjab.
(ix) This court is of the considered view, that even if the caste certificate of the father of the petitioner is under cloud, this does not disentitle the State of Punjab from issuance of caste certificate to the petitioner upon proper enquiry.
(x) ............... (xi) This court is of the considered view that caste scrutiny committee in
the state of Jharkhand has rightly decided the reference and the same does not called for any interference. It is reiterated that the caste status of the petitioner has not yet been declared. She can still approach the competent authority in the state of Punjab for declaration of her caste and for issuance of caste certificate. Merely because the caste certificate issued in the name of father of the petitioner is in cloud, that by itself is not sufficient to deny the caste status of the petitioner by the State of Punjab, if she is otherwise found upon enquiry to be belonging to the "passi" community. The said determination requires detailed investigation as per the circular issued on 22nd March 1977 issued by Union of India read with the mandate of the aforesaid judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Madhuri Patil (supra).
36. The writ petition was dismissed with a liberty to the petitioner to move before the appropriate authority in the State of Punjab for issuance of Caste Certificate to the petitioner after due enquiry/ verification in accordance with law.
37. This Court finds that in the said judgment passed in the earlier round of litigation, this Court was also of the considered view that the Caste Scrutiny Committee of the State of 21 Jharkhand rightly did not decide the actual caste status of the petitioner as the state of origin of the petitioner is State of Punjab and ultimately, this Court neither interfered with the order of cancellation of caste certificate of the petitioner dated 04.04.1989 by the District Welfare Officer nor interfered with the order passed by the Caste Scrutiny Committee which had declined to decide the caste status of the petitioner. This Court was totally silent so far as the charge sheet - cum- show cause notice is concerned and consequently the charge sheet - cum- show cause notice dated 24.06.2010 was also not interfered with.
38. The judgement of the court was dictated and pronounced in the open court in presence of the parties and it appears that the petitioner had approached the authorities in the State of Punjab for issuance of caste certificate without waiting for issuance of certified copy of the judgement. This Court does not find any illegality in such steps taken by the petitioner when the judgement itself was dictated and pronounced in the open court.
39. There is no dispute that the petitioner has been issued the caste certificate by the State of Punjab on 07.08.2018 and the petitioner had produced a copy of the caste certificate before the Senior Divisional Manager, Life Insurance Corporation of India, Jamshedpur and also to the Branch Manager, Life Insurance Corporation of India at Ranchi for its consideration as a part of reply to the charge sheet - cum- show cause notice dated 24.06.2010. Consequently, the Life Insurance Corporation of India had made correspondences with the State of Punjab to find out about the genuineness of issuance of the caste certificate dated 07.08.2018 to the petitioner and in turn the State of Punjab ultimately confirmed the issuance of caste certificate dated 07.08.2018 to the petitioner certifying that the petitioner belongs to the Scheduled Caste category "Passi". The 22 caste certificate dated 07.08.2018 which has been issued to the petitioner by the State of Punjab has not been challenged by Life Insurance Corporation of India. On 15.05.2020 the arguments of the petitioner as well as Life Insurance Corporation of India were concluded and the matter was adjourned and was taken up on 05.06.2020 at the request of the learned counsel appearing for the respondent no. 4 for his arguments and it was submitted on 05.06.2020 that an affidavit has been filed on 05.06.2020 that the respondent no. 4 has challenged the caste certificate issued in favour of the petitioner before the caste scrutiny committee in the State of Punjab. However the fact remains that the caste certificate of the petitioner issued by the State of Punjab is existing and the employer of the petitioner has not challenged the same before any authority. The learned counsel for the Life Insurance Corporation of India has not disputed the caste status of the petitioner, but his specific argument is that the caste certificate which was issued to the petitioner in the year 1989 ultimately stood cancelled and therefore, the petitioner has been rightly dismissed pursuant to charge sheet- cum- show cause notice dated 24.06.2010 as the appointment of the petitioner was on the basis of the caste certificate issued in the year 1989 by the District Welfare Officer, Ranchi which was not restored by the high court and the writ petition was dismissed and there is no such direction issued by this Court in the earlier round of litigation that the caste certificate, if issued by the State of Punjab should be considered while considering the reply to the charge sheet- cum- show cause notice dated 24.06.2010.
40. This Court finds that the allegation against the petitioner in charge sheet- cum- show cause dated 24.06.2010 was that the petitioner being a General Category candidate applied for the Post exclusively advertised for SC/ST candidate on the strength of caste certificate dated 23 04.04.1989 which has been cancelled by District Vide Memo Dated- 25.05.2010 and accordingly the petitioner had misrepresented by submitting false caste certificate and had acted in a manner prejudicial to good conduct and detrimental to the interest of the Life Insurance Corporation of India.
41. This Court finds that the allegations that the petitioner being a general category candidate, and misrepresented that she was a candidate belonging to Scheduled Caste category stand nullified from the fact that the authority from the State of Punjab has issued a caste certificate in favour of the petitioner certifying that she belongs to the scheduled caste "Passi". This Court is of the considered view that a person does not acquire a caste status by virtue of a caste certificate but he already has a caste status and a caste certificate is just a declaration of his caste to which he already belongs.
42. So far as the grant of caste certificate to the petitioner as back as in the year 1989 is concerned, it is not in dispute that the same was issued by District Welfare Officer, Ranchi and accordingly the caste certificate of the year 1989 is not a forged document. The caste certificate issued in the year 1989 was cancelled vide order dated 25.05.2010 issued by District Welfare Officer, Ranchi on the ground that the petitioner belongs to Khatri Community of general category and she had falsely claimed herself belonging to scheduled caste and dishonestly applied for employment before LIC on the post reserved for SC/ST Candidate. When the matter was referred to caste scrutiny committee by an order of this Court in the earlier round of litigation, the caste scrutiny committee did not pronounce upon the caste status of the petitioner on the ground that she originally belongs to the State of Punjab and consequently did not restore the caste certificate of the petitioner . This Court also found that the caste status of the 24 petitioner could have been declared by the State of Punjab to which she originally belongs and accordingly refused to interfere with the order of cancellation of caste certificate dated 25.05.2010 which she ultimately obtained caste certificate dated 07.08.2018 from the State of Punjab which was also verified by the LIC from the authorities from Punjab and ultimately as on date, the declaration of the petitioner that she belongs to Scheduled Caste category is correct . There is no scope for arguments before this Court regarding the legality and validity of the caste certificate dated 07.08.2018 issued by the State of Punjab and the same is beyond the scope of the present writ petition.
43. In the present case it is not in dispute that the petitioner had done her schooling etc. in the then state of Bihar and the passi community falls under Scheduled Caste category even in the present State of Jharkhand. It appears that the petitioner applied for caste certificate before the District Welfare Officer, Ranchi , who erroneously issued the same and the error was not about the caste status of the petitioner but the error was about the competence of the authority who issued the certificate though the cancellation of the caste certificate was on the ground that the petitioner belongs to general category and not to the Scheduled Caste category. There is no finding of fraud, misrepresentation or collusion on the part of the petitioner and the fact is that the petitioner applied for caste certificate before the District Welfare Officer, who granted the same to the petitioner. The cancellation of caste certificate by the District Welfare Officer as well as the show-cause by the LIC both were on the ground that the petitioner belongs to general category and when the matter was referred to Caste Scrutiny Committee , the committee refused to decide the caste status of the petitioner and was of the view that the District Welfare Officer, Ranchi could not have issued the caste 25 certificate as the petitioner originally belongs to the State of Punjab. This view was upheld by this Court and the petitioner was granted liberty to approach the appropriate authority of the State of Punjab for declaration of her caste status. The fact remains that the matter regarding caste status of the petitioner could be verified only by the State of Punjab and in such circumstances, while deciding the writ petition, this Court did not interfere with the cancellation of caste certificate of the petitioner, but gave liberty to the petitioner to approach the State of Punjab for appropriate declaration and ultimately, the State of Punjab has also declared the caste status of the petitioner as "Passi" on 07.08.2018.
44. Thus, this Court finds that the declaration given by the petitioner at the time of appointment as back as in the year 1989 that she belongs to Scheduled Caste category has been ultimately found to be correct by issuance of caste certificate dated 07.08.2018 by the State of Punjab. There can be no doubt that in order to be considered for the post reserved for SC category, the requirement is that a person should belong to such category. If a person is Scheduled Caste he is so by birth and not by acquisition of this category because of any other event happening at a later stage. A certificate issued by competent authority to this effect is only an affirmation of fact which is already in existence. The purpose of such certificate is to enable the authorities to believe in the assertion of the candidate that he belongs to Scheduled Caste category and act thereon by giving the benefit to such candidate for his belonging to Scheduled Caste category. This view has been taken by the Hon'ble Delhi High court, as discussed later in this judgement, and this Court is in complete agreement with it. It is not that petitioner did not belong to Scheduled Caste category prior to 07.08.2018 or that she acquired the status of being Scheduled Caste only on the date of issuance of the certificate.
2645. The aforesaid view has been taken by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of "Tej Pal Singh versus Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi" reported in 1999 SCC OnLine Delhi 1092 which has been followed in the judgement of Delhi High Court in the case of "Pushpa versus Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi" reported in 2009 SCC OnLine Delhi 281 which has been quoted in para 16 of the judgement passed by the Hon'ble Supreme court in the judgement reported in (2016) 4 SCC 754 ( Ram Kumar Guroya versus Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board and another ) and has been heavily relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner.
46. So far as the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of "R. Vishwanatha Pillai v. State of Kerala and Others" reported in (2004) 2 SCC 105 is concerned, the same does not apply to the facts and circumstances of this case. In the said case the petitioner obtained the appointment on the basis that he belonged to a Scheduled Caste community and when it was found by the Scrutiny Committee that he did not belong to the said community, then the very basis of his appointment was taken away and it was held that his appointment was no appointment in the eyes of the law and that he cannot claim a right to the post as he had usurped the post meant for a reserved candidate by playing fraud and producing a false caste certificate and the appointment was held to be void from its inception. On the point of equity considering the ground that the petitioner of the said case had completed 27 years of service, it was held that a person who entered the service by producing a false caste certificate and obtained appointment for the post meant for a Scheduled Caste, thus depriving a genuine Scheduled Caste candidate of appointment to that post, does not deserve any sympathy or indulgence of the Court. It was also held that a person who 27 seeks equity must come with clean hands and he who comes to the court with false claims, cannot plead equity nor would the court be justified to exercise equity jurisdiction in his favour and a person who seeks equity must act in a fair and equitable manner.
47. In the present case there is neither any material on record nor any allegation of any malafide or fraud against the petitioner or the District Welfare officer , Ranchi in the matter of applying and grant of caste certificate to the petitioner by the District Welfare officer at Ranchi. The cancellation of the caste certificate was upheld on the technical ground that the caste status certificate could have been issued only by the State of Punjab as the petitioner originally belongs to the State of Punjab. It is further not in dispute that the caste to which the petitioner belongs is Scheduled Caste in the State of Jharkhand also as has been recorded in the report of the Caste Scrutiny Committee to whom the matter was referred by this Court for determination of the caste status of the petitioner and was subject matter of W.P.(C) No. 4922 of 2015 as stated above.
48. The fact remains that in the earlier round of litigation this Court did not interfere with the charge-sheet cum show cause notice issued to the petitioner by Life Insurance Corporation of India and certainly there was no occasion to interfere with the same as the caste status of the petitioner was ultimately neither declared by the Caste Scrutiny Committee nor by this Court and the essential corollary was that the result of the charge- sheet cum show cause notice issued to the petitioner by Life Insurance Corporation of India would certainly be dependent upon any declaration of caste status of the petitioner by the State of Punjab although it was not specifically indicated in the judgement passed by this Court in the earlier round of litigation, on account of which, the appellate authority of Life Insurance Corporation of India has refused to consider caste 28 status certificate dated 07.08.2018 issued to the petitioner by the State of Punjab. Further the original authority who had passed the order of dismissal is totally silent about the caste status certificate dated 07.08.2018 issued to the petitioner by the State of Punjab. The original authority who has passed the impugned order of termination dated 30.07.2019 (Annexure- 19) has found that no relief has been granted to the petitioner in the judgement dated 25.07.2018 passed in earlier round of litigation and the order cancelling the caste certificate dated 04.04.1989 has revived and accordingly, the appointment of the petitioner on the basis of caste certificate is void ab-initio . This Court has held above that the caste of the petitioner has been acquired by birth and the caste certificate dated 04.04.1989 was merely a declaration which was not restored on technical grounds without giving any finding as to whether the petitioner belonged to the caste as claimed by the petitioner and kept it open to the petitioner to get her caste status declared from State of Punjab , to which she originally belongs. In such circumstances the appointment of the petitioner cannot be said to be void ab- initio as held in the order dated 25.05.2010. There is neither any allegation nor any finding of collusion or fraud against the petitioner or the authority issuing the caste certificate dated 04.04.1989. The finding against the authority issuing the caste certificate to the petitioner, which has been heavily relied upon by the learned counsel appearing for the Intervenor respondent , as recorded in para 26 of the judgement dated 25.07.2018 is that the caste certificate, which was issued to the petitioner in the year 1989, was wrongly issued by wrongful and reckless exercise of power by the authority concerned amounting to complete non-application of mind. It has also been recorded that the caste certificate which was issued to the petitioner also did not indicate as to whether she belongs to the State of Bihar or the State of Punjab and it 29 appears that neither it was disclosed nor such enquiry was made as to whether she belongs to the State of Bihar or to any other State. The said finding does not indicate any act of fraud or collusion so as to declare the appointment of the petitioner as void ab-initio. It is not the case of the respondents that issuance of caste certificate from the then State of Bihar or the State of Punjab would have made any difference with respect to entitlement of the petitioner to appointment on the advertised post. The appellate authority while considering the caste certificate issued by the State of Punjab dated 07.08.2018 has refused to consider the same on the ground that this Court in judgement dated 25.07.2018 had not directed the Life Insurance Corporation of India to consider the caste certificate which may be issued by the State of Punjab. This Court has already held above that the essential corollary of the judgement passed in the earlier round of litigation was that the result of the charge- sheet cum show cause notice issued to the petitioner by Life Insurance Corporation of India would certainly be dependent upon any declaration of caste status of the petitioner by the State of Punjab although it was not specifically indicated in the judgement .
49. This Court is also of the considered view that the persons belonging to Scheduled Caste category are disadvantaged citizens of the society and it is for the authorities to guide them properly even in the matter of issuance of caste certificate. The guidelines of the Government of India are in possession of the authorities who deal with the matter and they have been authorized to issue caste certificate to persons belong to other states only in certain circumstances which has been elaborately considered in the earlier round of litigation in W.P.(C) No. 2760 of 2010 decided on 25.07.2018. This Court is of the considered view that the petitioner cannot be made to suffer if at the time of making application for caste certificate way back in the year 30 1989 she was not informed by the authority concerned that the caste certificate can be issued to her only by the State of her origin and it is not the case of the respondents that she was under any obligation to inform the authority about her State of origin or there is any misrepresentation or suppression on her part.
50. This Court finds that the entire genesis of the show cause issued to the petitioner regarding her being a general category candidate does not exist as the petitioner actually belongs to the caste "Passi" as per caste certificate dated 07.08.2018. Such technical approach of the Life Insurance Corporation of India that the subsequent caste certificate need not be considered as there is no such observation or direction by this Court in judgment dated 25.07.2018 in W.P.(C) No. 2760 of 2010 and another analogous case, is not at all sustainable in the eyes of law particularly in view of the fact that the declaration of the caste status of a person is just a declaration and the caste status is obtained by birth. Though the caste certificate issued by the District Welfare Officer in the State of Jharkhand was cancelled, but the same does not amount to cancellation of caste status of the petitioner which stood subsequently declared by the State of Punjab on 07.08.2018.
51. This Court is of the considered view that all the consequences which flow out of issuance of such caste certificate by the State of Punjab have serious bearing on the charge sheet- cum- show cause notice as the very basis of issuance of charge sheet- cum- show cause notice that the petitioner belongs to general category, does not exist . This Court is of the considered view that the authority who had issued the charge sheet- cum- show cause notice to the petitioner on 24.06.2010 ought to have considered the caste certificate of the petitioner dated 07.08.2018 issued to the petitioner by the State of Punjab.
3152. As a cumulative effect of the aforesaid findings the impugned order of termination dated 30.07.2019 (Annexure-
19) as well as the appellate order dated 24.09.2019 (Annexure-
21) are hereby set-aside only on account of non-consideration of declaration of the caste of the petitioner and consequent caste- certificate dated 07.08.2018 issued in favour of the petitioner by the State of Punjab. The matter is remitted back to the original authority namely, Senior Divisional Manager, LIC of India, Jamshedpur Divisional Office, East Singhbhum for fresh consideration and for passing fresh order after considering the aforesaid caste certificate dated 07.08.2018 after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of a representation alongwith a copy of this order.
53. However this Court cannot lose sight of the fact that recently the intervenor respondent, in his individual capacity, has challenged the caste certificate issued to the petitioner by the State of Punjab and it is observed that all the legal consequences arising from the result of such challenge shall follow in accordance with law.
54. This writ petition is allowed with aforesaid observations and directions.
(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.) Pankaj