Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Anustha Prakash vs Principal Director Of Audit(Industry ... on 13 January, 2026
1
O.A. No. 2290/2024
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI
O.A. No. 2290/2024
Reserved on: 19.12.2025
Pronounced on: 13.01.2026
Hon'ble Ms. Harvinder Kaur Oberoi, Member (J)
Hon'ble Mr. B. Anand, Member (A)
ANUSTHA PRAKASH
D/ o Jai Prakash
Aged about 30 years
R/o Purani Post Office Road
Samastipur Bihar.
...Applicant
(By Advocate: Mr. Archit Krishna)
VERSUS
1. Union of India
Principal Director of Audit, (Industry and Corporate
Affairs) through its Secretary AGCR Building, I.P Estate,
New Delhi - 110002.
2. Deputy Comptroller and Auditor General (Human
Resource, International Relations and Coordination)
Pocket-9, Deen Dayal Upadhyaya Marg, New Delhi-
1100124.
...Respondents
(By Advocates: Mr. Jalaj Aggarwal for R-1 and Dr. S.S.
Hooda assisted by Mr. Aayushman Aeron and Ms. Rashmi
Rawat for R-2)
2026.01.14
ANJALI 15:41:06
+05'30'
2
O.A. No. 2290/2024
ORDER
Hon'ble Mr. B. Anand, Member (A):
The applicant, a resident of District Samastipur, Bihar, belonging to the 'Lohar' community, appeared in the Staff Selection Commission - Combined Graduate Level Examination, 2015, and was selected for appointment to the post of Auditor under the Other Backward Class (OBC) category. A caste certificate dated 19.09.2015 was issued by the District Collector, Samastipur, Bihar, certifying that the applicant belongs to the 'Lohar' community, which, at the relevant point of time, was recognised as an OBC in the State of Bihar.
2. Subsequently, the Government of Bihar issued Notification No. 10818 dated 23.08.2016, whereby the 'Lohar (Lohara)' community was treated as a Scheduled Tribe (ST). Pursuant thereto, the applicant, armed with a Scheduled Tribe certificate, appeared in the Combined Graduate Level Examination, 2017 conducted by the Staff Selection Commission under the quota reserved for Scheduled Tribe candidates and was selected to the post of Assistant Accounts Officer (AAO). At the time of joining the said post on 30.07.2020, the applicant submitted a caste certificate dated 02.02.2017, certifying that she belongs to the 'Lohara (Lohar)' 2026.01.14 ANJALI 15:41:06 +05'30' 3 O.A. No. 2290/2024 community, then treated as a Scheduled Tribe under the said Bihar Government notification.
3. However, the aforesaid notification dated 23.08.2016 was challenged before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in W.P. (C) No. 1052 of 2021, titled Sunil Kumar Rai v. State of Bihar, reported in 2022 SCC OnLine SC 232, wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court, by judgment dated 21.02.2022, quashed the said notification and also passed strictures against the Government of Bihar for attempting to include the Lohara community in the Scheduled Tribe list without authority of law.
4. Consequent upon the quashing of the said notification, the respondents issued a memorandum dated 31.01.2023, calling upon the applicant to clarify as to whether she belongs to the ST or OBC category and to furnish a fresh caste certificate. The memorandum further stated that if the certificate did not establish her eligibility under the ST category, her services were liable to be terminated, as she had been appointed against a post reserved for Scheduled Tribe candidates. The applicant thereafter furnished a fresh certificate indicating that she belongs to the OBC category and not the ST category. Accordingly, since the applicant was still on probation, the respondents terminated her services from the post of AAO. However, taking a sympathetic view, the respondents reinstated the applicant to her earlier post of 2026.01.14 ANJALI 15:41:06 +05'30' 4 O.A. No. 2290/2024 Auditor in the office of the PAG (Audit)-I, Chennai, vide letter dated 03.05.2024, notwithstanding the fact that her extended lien on the said post had expired on 24.07.2022.
5. The applicant is aggrieved by the action of the respondents vide the impugned order dated 22.11.2023 which is now chosen to terminate her from her earlier post of 'AAO' and now relegated to her initial appointment as 'Auditor' and hence has filed this OA claiming the following relief(s):-
"a) Issue an appropriate direction or order quashing and setting aside the Termination order No.129 dated 22.11.2023 issued by the Principal Director of Audit (Industry and Corporate Affairs); and
b) Issue an appropriate direction or order, directing the Respondents to reinstate the Applicant to her post of Assistant Audit Officer in the Office of the Principal Director of Audit, Industry and Corporate Affairs, New Delhi with all consequent pay, allowances and benefits without any break in service.; and
c) Pass any order or direction this Hon'ble Tribunal deems fit in the facts and circumstances of the case."
6. Pursuant to notice, the respondents have filed reply and have disputed and contested the claim of the applicant. The applicant has filed rejoinder and reiterated his claim and the grounds pleaded in support thereof.
7. The short issue that arises for adjudication is whether the Applicant, who admittedly belongs to the Lohar community by birth, can be penalized for the change in the social category of her community from OBC to ST pursuant to a State Government notification over which she had no control, and 2026.01.14 ANJALI 15:41:06 +05'30' 5 O.A. No. 2290/2024 thereafter for the reversion of the said status consequent upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court quashing the notification. The question is whether, in such circumstances, her appointment to the post of 'AAO' under the ST category could be lawfully terminated.
8. Learned counsel for the applicant, in support of his contention that the applicant neither obtained any fake caste certificate, as alleged by the respondents, nor actively colluded with any person to have the community to which she belongs wrongly categorised from OBC to ST, submits that she cannot be penalised by termination of her services from the post of 'AAO', on which she worked for nearly three years. In support of this contention, he has placed reliance upon the following judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court:
(i) K. Nirmala and Others vs. Canara Bank and Another, reported in 2024 SCC OnLine SC 2273. The relevant paras of the said judgment read as under:-
"4. The common thread that runs through these matters is as to whether a person who joined the services of a Nationalized Bank/Government of India undertaking based on a certificate that identified him/her as belonging to a Scheduled Caste('SC')/Scheduled Tribe('ST') in the State of Karnataka, pursuant to the State Government's notifications, would be entitled to retain the position after the caste/tribe has been de- scheduled. The situation has arisen on account of the State of Karnataka redesignating some castes under the list of SC/ST, inspite of the fact that this jurisdiction is exclusively conferred upon the Parliament by virtue of the scheme under Articles 341 and 342 of the Constitution of India.
xxx 2026.01.14 ANJALI 15:41:06 +05'30' 6 O.A. No. 2290/2024
6. ..........It is undisputed that the appellants duly obtained these Caste Certificates in accordance with the prevailing Government circular.
7. A Constitution Bench of this Court in State of Maharashtra v. Milind1, held that the State Government has no authority to amend or modify the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes list published under Articles 341 and 342 of the Constitution of India. A caste can only be classified as a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe or a Socially and Educationally Backward Caste when the Presidential Order is issued to that effect in exercise of the powers prescribed under Articles 341, 342, and 342A of the Constitution of India respectively.
8. Pursuant to the judgment in the case of Milind (supra), the Ministry of Finance, Department of Economic Affairs(Banking Division), Government of India in consultation with the Ministry of Welfare vide letter dated 12th March 1987, declared the State of Karnataka circulars which included the 'Kotegara' caste in the list of Scheduled Castes in the State of Karnataka to be non-est........
In view of the position explained above, persons belonging to Kotegara and Kote-Kshatriya who have been appointed against the vacancy reserved for scheduled castes cannot be treated as scheduled castes even at the time of their initial appointment because these community have never been treated as synonymous of Kotegar-Matri(sic) by the Government of India which is in the list of SSC in Karnataka. It is infact, entirely the responsible of employer Department to have the matter verified through the State Government, before accepting the claim of the candidates who have been appointed against the reserved posts."
xxx
25. At the outset, it is to be noted that there is no dispute over the fact that the appellants obtained their Caste Certificates(under the Scheduled Castes category) by following the due process of law. When these Caste Certificates were issued, the synonymous caste, as of the appellants had been included in the list of Scheduled Castes by virtue of the circular issued by the Government of Karnataka, albeit by exercising powers that were not vested in the State.
26. As held by the Constitution Bench in Milind (supra), any inclusion or exclusion in or from the list of Scheduled Castes can only be made through an Act of Parliament under Articles 341 and 342 of the Constitution of India. As a corollary thereto, neither the State Government nor the Courts have the authority to modify the list of Scheduled Castes as promulgated by the Presidential order under the above Articles.
27. For this precise reason, pursuant to the judgment in Milind (supra), the Government of Karnataka took the only permissible decision to de-schedule the castes to which the appellants herein belonged. However, considering the fact that the Caste Certificates issued to the appellants under the previous inclusions made by the State Government to the 2026.01.14 ANJALI 15:41:06 +05'30' 7 O.A. No. 2290/2024 Scheduled Castes list, albeit under a legal misconception was not obtained through misrepresentation or fraud, the State Government took the pragmatic decision to protect the employment of those individuals who had been benefited by these Caste Certificates obtained prior to issuance of the Government circulars dated 11th March, 2002 and 29th March, 2003. There is no dispute on the fact that each of the appellants herein fall within this category. These Government circulars clearly stipulate that individuals who secured employment based on the Caste Certificates issued under the erroneous Government circulars/orders would no longer be entitled to claim future benefits under such certificates and would henceforth be treated as General Merit category candidates for all practical purposes.
xxx
30. ...... Their only prayer was to protect the services of the appellants while conceding that their Caste Certificates would be deemed invalid and that they would not be entitled to any future benefits under the reserved category.
xxx
35. In wake of the discussion made above, we conclude that the appellants are entitled to protection of their services by virtue of the Government circular dated 29th March, 2003 issued by the Government of Karnataka as ratified by communication dated 17th August, 2005 issued by the Ministry of Finance. The circular dated 29th March, 2003 issued by the Government of Karnataka specifically extended protection to various castes, including those which were excluded in the earlier Government circular dated 11th March, 2002. This subsequent circular covered the castes such as Kotegara, Kotekshathriya, Koteyava, Koteyar, Ramakshathriya, Sherugara, and Sarvegara, thus, ensuring that individuals of these castes, holding Scheduled Castes Certificates issued prior to de-scheduling, would be entitled to claim protection of their services albeit as unreserved candidates for all future purposes. Additionally, the communication issued by the Ministry of Finance dated 17th August, 2005 reinforced the protective umbrella to the concerned bank employees and also saved them from departmental and criminal action.
xxx
37. Consequently, we hold that the proposed action of the respondent banks/undertakings in issuing notice(s) to the appellants to show cause as to why their services may not be terminated cannot be sustained and are hereby quashed." 2026.01.14 ANJALI 15:41:06 +05'30' 8 O.A. No. 2290/2024
(ii) Dr. Bhim Rao Ambedkar Vichar Manch Bihar v. State of Bihar, reported in 2024 INSC 528. Para 39 of the said judgment reads as under:-
"39. Now comes the question with regard to protecting those Members of "Tanti-Tantwa" community who were extended benefit of Scheduled Castes pursuant to the Resolution dated 01.07.2015. In the present case, the action of the State is found to be mala fide and de hors the constitutional provisions. The State cannot be pardoned for the mischief done by it. Depriving the members of the Scheduled Castes covered by the lists under Article 341 of the Constitution is a serious issue. Any person not deserving and not covered by such list if extended such benefit for deliberate and mischievous reasons by the State, cannot take away the benefit of the members of the Scheduled Castes. Such appointments would under law on the findings recorded would be liable to be set aside. However, as we have found fault with the conduct of the State and not of any individual member of the "Tanti-Tantwa" community, we do not wish to direct that their services may be terminated or that recovery may be made for illegal appointments or withdrawal of other benefits which may have been extended. We are of the view that all such posts of the Scheduled Castes reserved quota which have been extended to the members of the "Tanti-Tantwa"
community appointed subsequent to the Resolution dated 01.07.2015 be returned to the Scheduled Castes Quota and all such members of the "Tanti-Tantwa" community, who have been extended such benefit may be accommodated under their original category of Extremely Backward Classes, for which the State may take appropriate measures."
(iii) Union of India & Ors. v. Rohit Nandan, reported in 2024 INSC 984. Paras10 to 15 of the said judgment read as under:-
"10. However, the learned counsel submitted that despite illegality in the notification, this Court in Bhim Rao Ambedkar (supra) had protected those who had come to occupy the posts.
The relevant portion is also reproduced for convenience:
"39. Now comes the question with regard to protecting those Members of "Tanti-Tantwa" community who were extended benefit of Scheduled Castes pursuant to the Resolution dated 01.07.2015. In the present case, the action of the State is found to be mala fide and de hors the constitutional provisions. The State cannot be pardoned for the mischief done by it. Depriving the 2026.01.14 ANJALI 15:41:06 +05'30' 9 O.A. No. 2290/2024 members of the Scheduled Castes covered by the lists under Article 341 of the Constitution is a serious issue. Any person not deserving and not covered by such list if extended such benefit for deliberate and mischievous reasons by the State, cannot take away the benefit of the members of the Scheduled Castes. Such appointments would under law on the findings recorded would be liable to be set aside. However, as we have found fault with the conduct of the State and not of any individual member of the "Tanti-Tantwa" community, we do not wish to direct that their services may be terminated or that recovery may be made for illegal appointments or withdrawal of other benefits which may have been extended. We are of the view that all such posts of the Scheduled Castes reserved quota which have been extended to the members of the "Tanti- Tantwa" community appointed subsequent to the Resolution dated 01.07.2015 be returned to the Scheduled Castes Quota and all such members of the "Tanti-Tantwa" community, who have been extended such benefit may be accommodated under their original category of Extremely Backward Classes, for which the State may take appropriate measures. [...]
42. It is further directed that such posts of the Scheduled Castes Quota which had been filled up by members of "Tanti-Tantwa" community availing benefit on the basis of Resolution dated 01.07.2015 may be returned to the Scheduled Castes category and such candidates of "Tanti-Tantwa" community be accommodated by the State in their original category of Extremely Backward Classes by taking appropriate measures."
11. Learned counsel has also relied on the decision of this Court in K. Nirmala v. Canara Bank3 wherein the appellants were granted protection despite the State Government notification treating them as members belonging to Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe was withdrawn by the State Government after the decision of the Supreme Court in a case of State of Maharashtra v. Milind & Ors.4 The relevant portion of the said order is as under:
"35. In wake of the discussion made above, we conclude that the appellants are entitled to protection of their services by virtue of the Government circular dated 29th March, 2003 issued by the Government of Karnataka as ratified by communication dated 17th August, 2005 issued by the Ministry of Finance. The circular dated 29th March, 2003 issued by the Government of Karnataka specifically extended protection to various castes, including those which were excluded in the earlier Government circular dated 11th March, 2002. This subsequent circular covered the castes such as Kotegara, Kotekshathriya, Koteyava, Koteyar, Ramakshathriya, Sherugara and Sarvegara, thus, ensuring that individuals of these castes, holding Scheduled Castes certificates issued prior to de- scheduling, would be entitled to claim protection of their services albeit as unreserved candidates for all future 2026.01.14 ANJALI 15:41:06 +05'30' 10 O.A. No. 2290/2024 purposes. Additionally, the communication issued by the Ministry of Finance dated 17th August, 2005 reinforced the protective umbrella to the concerned bank employees and also saved them from departmental and criminal action."
12. Having considered the matter in detail, we are of the opinion that after the decision of this Court in the case of Bhim Rao Ambedkar (supra), the issue of the appellant claiming reservation as Scheduled Caste candidate does not subsist. As indicated earlier, it is not even the argument of the respondent that the said judgment will not apply.
13. The decisions of this Court in Bhim Rao Ambedkar (supra) and in K. Nirmala (supra) exercising equity jurisdiction stand on a different footing and they can be distinguished on facts. Those judgments dealt with long standing appointments, continued over a period of time, because of which court felt, on equitable considerations, not to disturb the employment of the appellants therein. The facts in this case are completely different and the following will clarify the position.
14. The respondent was in service of the Union on the basis of reservation claimed by him as an OBC candidate. It was only on 02.07.2015 that the State Government issued a notification shifting the caste Tanti from the OBC to that of Scheduled Caste and the necessary change in the service record was brought only on 17.08.2018. In the meanwhile, an advertisement was issued on 07.10.2016 for a Limited Departmental Competitive Examination, and the respondent applied as a Scheduled Caste candidate.
15. When the Government refused appointment to the respondent to the post as he does not belong to Scheduled Caste, he approached the Tribunal and filed an Original Application which came to be dismissed on 01.04.2022. However, the respondent's writ petition was allowed by the High Court only on 19.01.2023. We are informed that during the pendency of the matter before this Court, the respondent was appointed to the said promotional post only on 14.12.2023. Even assuming that the respondent was given benefit of his illegal categorisation as a Scheduled Caste candidate, the benefit that accrued to him was for a short period of less than a year and that too during the pendency of this appeal. Therefore, there are no equities in favour of the respondent like that of the candidates in the case of Bhim Rao Ambedkar or K. Nirmala (supra). In view of the clear position of law, coupled with lack of equities based on the facts and circumstances of the case, we cannot direct continuation of the respondent on the basis of the illegal certification as Scheduled Caste."
9. Learned counsel also submits that if any illegality is alleged in respect of the categorization of the community, the 2026.01.14 ANJALI 15:41:06 +05'30' 11 O.A. No. 2290/2024 same is entirely attributable to subsequent governmental action and not to any act or omission of the applicant. In such circumstances, the applicant cannot be penalized for an error for which the State alone is responsible.
10. It is also contended that the applicant has served on the post of 'AAO' for a considerable period and has discharged her duties without any adverse record, thereby creating equities in her favour. Learned counsel submits that the impugned action of terminating the applicant's services is arbitrary, grossly disproportionate, and contrary to the settled law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, and is therefore liable to be set aside.
11. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondents states that the Hon'ble Apex Court while quashing the notification dated 23.08.2016 of the Bihar Government had specifically observed at Para 18 of the said judgment, while referring to the earlier decision in Vinay Prakash vs State of Bihar, reported in (1997) 3 SCC 406, which was a previous case regarding inclusion of 'Lohar' community in the 'ST' category, held that there cannot be prospective effect of judgment in such cases as the persons were not entitled to status of 'ST' from the beginning, and hence, the applicant cannot be granted benefit of status of 'ST' to which she was never entitled to. He adds that she could not be allowed to continue to enjoy the benefit of ST 2026.01.14 ANJALI 15:41:06 +05'30' 12 O.A. No. 2290/2024 category and deny opportunity to a real ST candidate to occupy the said post. Hence her termination is absolutely correct in law.
12. Reliance was also placed on DoP&T O.M. No. 36011/1/2012-Estt.(Res.) dated 10.01.2013, which lays down the guidelines as to how to treat those candidates who have initially joined Government service on the strength of a particular caste certificate belonging to SC/ST or OBC and subsequently during their service when it is learnt that they do not belong to the said social category (SC/ST/OBC), how to treat their continuation or otherwise in the service. The said DoP&T OM reads as under:-
"The undersigned is directed to invite reference to this Department's OM No. 11012/7/91-Estt.(A) dated 19.5.1993 which provides as under:-
"Where it is found that a Government servant, who was not qualified or eligible in terms of the recruitment rules etc., for initial recruitment in service or had furnished false information or produced a false certificate in order to secure appointment, he should not be retained in service. If, he is probationer or a temporary Government servant, he should be discharged or his services should be terminated. If he has become a permanent Government servant, an inquiry as prescribed in Rule 14 of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 may be held and if the charges are proved, the Government servant should be removed or dismissed from service. In no circumstances should any penalty be imposed".
2. The position was reiterated vide this Department's OM No. 42011/22/2006-Estt. (Res.) dated the 29th March 2007 that the cases other than those protected by the specific order of the Apex Court should be dealt with in accordance with the instructions contained in the aforesaid O.M. However, it has been observed that disciplinary proceedings in the cases involving appointments on the basis of false/fake caste certificate take considerable time and the persons who have secured employment on the basis of false caste certificates enjoy 2026.01.14 ANJALI 15:41:06 +05'30' 13 O.A. No. 2290/2024 the benefits of Government service whereas such Government servants should be removed/dismissed from the service at the earliest.
3. It is requested that disciplinary enquiries involving the matter of securing jobs on the basis of false/fake certificates should be completed in a time bound manner and unscrupulous persons who have got appointment on the basis of fake/false caste certificates should not be retained in service and should be dismissed/removed thenceforth."
13. He further submitted that permitting the applicant to continue in the post of 'AAO' under the ST category, despite her not belonging to the said category as affirmed by the Hon'ble Apex Court by quashing the Bihar Government notification dated 23.08.2016, would deprive a genuine ST candidate of the opportunity to occupy the said post. He also contended that the judgments in K. Nirmala (supra) and Bhim Rao Ambedkar (supra), as referred to in Rohit Nandan (supra), were expressly distinguished therein, as already noted in paragraph 8(iii) of this order.
14. We have heard the learned counsels for the parties at length and with their assistance have also gone through the pleadings available on record.
15. We find that both the applicant and the respondents are relying upon the Rohit Nandan's case (supra) to buttress their own individual point of view.
16. We find force in the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the respondents that, in K. Nirmala (supra) and Bhim Rao Ambedkar (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court was 2026.01.14 ANJALI 15:41:06 +05'30' 14 O.A. No. 2290/2024 dealing with cases of long-standing appointments which had continued over a considerable period of time and, therefore, on equitable considerations, the Court chose not to disturb the employment of the appellants therein. In contrast, in Rohit Nandan, the benefit that accrued to the respondent on account of his erroneous categorization as a SC candidate was only for a short duration of less than one year and that too during the pendency of the proceedings. Consequently, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that there were no equities in favour of the respondent in Rohit Nandan, unlike the situations in K. Nirmala (supra) and Bhim Rao Ambedkar (supra), and observed that "in view of the clear position of law, coupled with lack of equities based on the facts and circumstances of the case, we cannot direct continuation of the respondent on the basis of the illegal certification as Scheduled Caste."
17. In the instant case, the applicant was selected to the post of 'AAO' on 30.07.2020, and admittedly, her probation period of two years had not been completed. It is also not a case where any irreparable loss would be caused to the applicant by disallowing her claim for being considered under ST category, nor can it be said that she was entirely abandoned by the respondents. On the contrary, the respondents have taken a sympathetic view in the matter and, despite the fact that her lien on the post of 'Auditor' had expired on 24.07.2022, they offered her reinstatement to the post of 'Auditor', to which she 2026.01.14 ANJALI 15:41:06 +05'30' 15 O.A. No. 2290/2024 was originally entitled, having been selected to the said post at a time when the community to which she belongs, namely, 'Lohar', was categorized as OBC. The said status is the one which the community continues to enjoy consequent upon the quashing of the notification dated 23.08.2016 issued by the Government of Bihar by the Hon'ble Apex Court. In such circumstances, the applicant cannot be permitted to continue to avail the benefits of the SC/ST category, under which she was selected to the post of 'AAO'.
18. Accordingly, in the interest of justice, we direct that the services rendered by the applicant on the post of 'AAO' from the date of her joining on 30.07.2020 till 22.11.2023, when her services were terminated, along with the pay and allowances already drawn by her for discharging higher responsibilities, shall stand protected. No recovery shall be effected from the applicant. However, the applicant shall revert to the post of 'Auditor', and the intervening period of service rendered by her as 'AAO' shall be treated as if she had held the rank of 'Auditor' for reckoning of promotional benefits.
19. The present O.A. is disposed of in the aforesaid terms.
20. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.
(B. Anand) (Harvinder Kaur Oberoi)
Member (A) Member (J)
/anjali/
2026.01.14
ANJALI 15:41:06
+05'30'