DEVENDRA KUMAR KOLHE Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present Writ Petition has been filed assailing the order dated 11.01.2016 passed by the Secretary, General Administration Department, Government of Chhattisgarh and had ordered for taking appropriate action against the Petitioner and similarly placed persons canceling their appointment on the ground that they have obtained employment on the basis of false caste certificate and therefore the benefit of continuity in employment cannot be extended to the said persons. And by implication the service of the Petitioner and similarly placed persons is to be terminated.

(2.) The brief facts of the case is that the Petitioner in the instant case was appointed as Assistant Grade III on 13.10.1998 under the erstwhile State of Madhya Pradesh. As a result of bifurcation of the State of Madhya Pradesh and creation of State of Chhattisgarh the services of the Petitoiner stood allocated to the State of Chhattisgarh in the year 2000. The Petitioner had obtained employment claiming himself to be belonging to the scheduled tribe that of caste of Halba Koshtis / Koshti. The caste status of the Petitioner was meanwhile subjected to the verification by the High Level Caste Scrutiny Committee constituted by the State of Chhattisgarh. The report of the said committee was that the Petitioner is a Koshti by caste and that the caste certificate of the Petitioner of being a "Halba" was not proper and correct.

(3.) The State Government in between issued an instruction dated 01.10.2011 whereby they took a policy decision of not terminating services of the similarly placed persons where the dispute was of Halwa Kosti/ Kosti caste except the fact that they would not be entitled for any benefit of reservation in their services. It is this instruction which have been cancelled by the impugned order 11.01.2016 and there is every likelihood of the services of the Petitioner and similarly placed persons to be terminated. The contention of the Petitioner is that the services of the Petitioner deserves to be protected in the light of the judgment passed by the Supreme Court in the case of State of Maharshtra vs. Milind and Others [2001 (1) SCC 4].