Bombay High Court
Ashok S/O Jangluji Pimpalghare vs Senior Manager on 19 August, 2013
Author: Anoop V. Mohta
Bench: Anoop V. Mohta, Z.A. Haq
WP 5609/12 1 Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
WRIT PETITION NO. 5609/2012
Ashok S/o Jangluji Pimpalghare,
Aged about 48 yrs, Occu. Service,
Off/at - Canara Bank, Central Avenue Branch,
Nagpur. PETITIONER
.....VERSUS.....
1. Senior Manager,
Canara Bank, Divisional Office,
Sadar, Nagpur.
2. General Manager,
North Circle Office,
112, Sion Garage Building,
Sion Koliwada Road, Sion (E),
Mumbai - 400 022. RESPONDENTS
Shri S.R. Narnaware, counsel for the petitioner.
Shri Gurbani h/f Shri M.P. Lala, counsel for the respondents.
CORAM :ANOOP V. MOHTA AND
Z.A. HAQ, JJ.
DATE : 19 TH AUGUST , 2013 .
ORAL JUDGMENT (Per ANOOP V. MOHTA, J.)
RULE. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally.
2. The petitioner was appointed on 06.12.1988 as Lecturer by respondent no.1 against the vacancy earmarked for the Scheduled Tribe.
The petitioner was subsequently promoted and confirmed also.
::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2013 21:18:47 :::WP 5609/12 2 Judgment
3. After fourteen years of service, the caste claim of the petitioner was referred in the year 2003. The Caste Scrutiny Committee by order dated 21.10.2003 invalidated the caste claim of the petitioner.
The petitioner was subsequently terminated on 03.01.2005.
4. The writ petition was filed by the petitioner and this Court granted protection of service to the petitioner in view of 1State of Maharashtra Versus Milind Katware & Others. The respondents therein, however, challenged the same in the Supreme Court. The Apex Court in after hearing both the parties passed following order:
"Heard learned counsel for the parties.
This Appeal has been filed against the impugned judgment and order dated 22nd March, 2005, passed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Nagpur Bench, Nagpur in Writ Petition No.325 of 2005.
The facts have been set out in the impugned judgment and hence we are not repeating the same here.
It appears that respondent no.1 got appointment on the basis of a false caste certificate.
Once, it has been found that the caste certificate is false, obviously respondent No.1 has to lose his job because it is well settled that fraud vitiates every thing.
1 2001(1) Mh.L.J. 1
::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2013 21:18:47 :::
WP 5609/12 3 Judgment
Accordingly, this appeal is allowed and the impugned judgment of the High Court is set aside and the service of respondent No.1 is terminated. No costs."
5. The petitioner filed present writ petition on 16.10.2012 and claimed protection being belonging to Halba Koshti Scheduled Tribe in view of Office Memorandum dated 10.08.2010 and the judgment of the Supreme Court in 1Kavita Solunke Versus State of Maharashtra apart from other judgments of the Supreme Court as well as this Court whereby the Courts have granted protection to the persons. This Court (Coram:Anoop V. Mohta & Z.A. Haq, JJ.) also in the case of Ku.Vijaya Deorao Nandanwar Versus Chief Officer, Municipal Council, Wardha in Writ Petition No.5530/2012 & others, dated 10.07.2013, on same line, taking note of the above referred judgments and also other judgments of this Court granted protection to the similarly placed persons on the ground of parity/equality on certain terms and conditions. However, we have made position very clear so far as cases of fraud and misrepresentation are concerned in following words in paragraph No.45. Paragraph No.45 reads thus:
1 2012 AIR SCW 4472 ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2013 21:18:47 ::: WP 5609/12 4 Judgment "45. We are not concerned with the cases whether caste certificate of Halba-Koshti is obtained by fraud or misrepresentation. The Court needs to consider the case separately based upon the facts and circumstances. By this process only the Department of respondent/ management would be in a position to verify the genuine candidates who have valid certificates. We are also inclined to observe that in many matters where invalidation and or cancellation of caste certificate by itself cannot mean that it was false claim or false certificate. The facts and circumstances and the situation prevailing prior to 28.11.2000 just be cannot be overlooked while considering these cases."
6. In the present case, as noted above, there is a direct decision given by the Supreme Court after hearing both the parties and thereby observing that "Respondent no.1 (Petitioner) got appointment on the basis of a false caste certificate" and "Fraud vitiates everything". The Apex Court while allowing the appeal and by setting aside the order passed by the Division Bench of this Court, observed "The service of respondent no.1 (Petitioner) is terminated". Therefore, in view of specific findings so given by the Supreme Court after hearing both the parties, we see no reason to grant any relief to the petitioner as no case is made out in view of the specific findings so recorded above.
::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2013 21:18:47 :::WP 5609/12 5 Judgment
7. The submission made on behalf of the petitioner to grant liberty is also not acceptable to us in view of clear decision/findings given by the Supreme Court in the matter. The petitioner is free to invoke the remedy whatsoever available to the petitioner in accordance with law.
8. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. Rule stands discharged. No costs.
JUDGE JUDGE
APTE
::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2013 21:18:47 :::