Kumari Madhuri Patil vs Addl. Commissioner on 2 September, 1994
3. Counter affidavit is filed by the respondent Bank
denying the averments of the affidavit filed in support of the
writ petition stating that the petitioner has alternative remedy
of appeal for challenging the cancellation of Caste Certificate
under Rule 11 (2) of G.O.Ms.No.58 S/W Department (J),
dated 12.06.1997 and without availing the same, the
petitioner cannot file the writ petition, as such, the same has
to be dismissed on that sole ground. It is stated that the
petitioner was appointed on the basis of her declaration in
the records of Bank that she belong to Schedule Tribes
Community but it turned out that her declaration and the
certificate, which she produced at the time of her
appointment in support of her declaration is not genuine.
The District Collector in his proceedings dated 26.11.2001
while canceling the Caste Certificate of the petitioner clearly
held that the petitioner does not belong to Schedule Tribes
Community and that when once the Certificate produced is
proved/held as not genuine, there is no need for the
management to hold any further enquiry. As per the
judgment of the Honble Supreme Court in Kumari Madhuri
Patil v. Addl. Commissioner, the Management can act on the
basis of the cancellation of certificate by the Chairman of the
scrutiny committee without holding an enquiry, as such,
there is no need to hold any enquiry, as contended by the
petitioner. When it is held that the petitioner did not belong
to Schedule Tribe Community, her appointment has become
void ab-initio and there is no need to permit the petitioner to
undergo Voluntary retirement under Voluntary Retirement
Scheme. It is stated that the question of accepting her
application under Voluntary Retirement Scheme arises only
when the employment of the petitioner is valid in the eye of
law. It is stated that thorough enquiry/investigation was
conducted by the Caste Scrutiny Committee after giving full
and fair opportunity to the petitioner, as such, it is not
correct to state that without giving any opportunity to the
petitioner, the enquiry was conducted. The petitioner has
not impleaded the District Collector who has
conducted/caused the enquiry/investigation into her caste
certificate in the writ petition, as such, the writ petition is not
maintainable without impleading necessary parties. The
petitioner is not entitled to any relief in the writ petition, as
she was appointed on the basis of the false certificate
produced by her. It is also stated that the petitioner answers
the definition of workmen under Section 2(s) of the Industrial
Disputes Act. However, the conditions of service of the
petitioner are governed under/by the various awards and
settlements, pronounced/signed under the provisions of the
I.D.Act and that the petitioner should have approached under
the provisions of the I.D Act and sought for dismissal of the
writ petition.