SMT. HEMAVATHY NINGARAJU K. Vs. DIRECTOR AND APPELLATE AUTHORITY, SCHEDULED TRIBES WELFARE, BANGALORE AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is before this Court assailing the orders dated 11.11.2009 and 27.01.2014 impugned at Annexures-A and B respectively.

(2.) The petitioner who acquired her degree in Engineering (Industrial Production) had applied and was selected as Engineer-II in the third respondent company. While seeking employment she had relied on the caste certificate dated 14.01.1991. The said certificate indicated her to belong to the 'Jenu Kuruba' caste which is a Schedule Tribe. As required, on being employed the third respondent employer referred the caste certificate for verification of its validity. The second respondent in that view issued notice to the petitioner. During the pendency of the proceedings, the family of the petitioner on gaining knowledge of the Government order dated 11.03.2002 surrendered the caste certificate to take benefit thereunder. The petitioner also surrendered the caste certificate along with her family members. Notwithstanding the same, the proceedings was continued and by the order dated 11.11.2009 relying on certain other entries contained in the document which indicate d that the cousin of the petitioner belonged to a different caste, arrived at the conclusion that the caste certificate obtained by the petitioner was false. Hence, it was held that the petitioner did not belong to 'Jenu Kuruba' caste. The petitioner claiming to be aggrieved filed an appeal in No.DSTW/appeal/CR-1/2013. The Appellate Authority has dismissed the said appeal. It is in that view the petitioner is before this Court assailing the said order.

(3.) The respondent No.3 has filed objection statement to the petition. Insofar as the said respondent is concerned, the employment of the petitioner is based on the caste certificate and in that view when ultimately the conclusion by the competent authority was that the petitioner did not belong to the caste based on which the certificate was relied, they have taken action to terminate her services. With regard to the benefit as claimed by the petitioner under the order dated 11.03.2002 the respondent No.3 has contended that such benefit would not be available to the petitioner. In respect of the reference made to another employee who was granted the benefit, the circumstances had been explained to indicate that the petitioner is not similarly placed. The respondents therefore seek that the petition be dismissed.