S SUNDARARAJU Vs. STATE BANK OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS case is a glaring example of an authority denying to one of its employees protection under Art. 16 (1) of the Constitution of India read with Art. 14 thereof and also encroaching upon the employee's right under Art. 21 of the Constitution of India. The employer, the facts disclose, has chosen to obstinately ignore the directions of this Court in W. P. No. 5400 of 1983 disposed of by a Division Bench of this Court as far back as 1. 8. 1984 and throwing on the face of the respondent in the instant proceeding some sort of an alleged recommendation by the Collector of the District of Tiruchirapalli dated 23. 8. 1993 to contend that it (the respondent) has good reasons to hold that the very initial appointment of the petitioner was illegal and thus, he is not entitled to seek any writ in the nature of mandamus in his substantive appointment and consequently, benefit as an employee under it.

(2.) FACTS tell their own story. Petitioner, it is not disputed, claimed that he belonged/ belongs to Konda Reddy Community, which is a Scheduled Tribe according to the Presidential Notification under the constitution Scheduled Tribes Order, 1958 and the General Rules in Vol. 1 of the tamil Nadu Service Manual. Petitioner was granted a Community Certificate by the Deputy Tahsildar, Salem on 13. 10. 1978 and appeared when called for interview, with the certificate. He was, however, advised to produce a Community Certificate from any of the officers prescribed and that the certificate granted by the Deputy Tahsildar was not one granted by the officer, who was authorised to do so. On 12. 1. 1979 the petitioner obtained a Community Certificate from a Judicial Magistrate (First Class) in the prescribed form and produced the same before the competent authority representing the respondent. Petitioner was selected for the post of clerk-cum-typist in the reserved category of Scheduled Tribe candidates and posted as clerk-cum-typist in Madurai Region. He joined duty on 5. 2. 1979 and has since been working in the said capacity. The respondent, however, directed the petitioner to obtain a fresh community certificate from the Revenue divisional Officer in pursuance of a Government Order in G. O. Ms. No. 1139, SW, dated 23. 3. 1979, otherwise, was threattened with termination of service. Petitioner moved this Court in W. P. No. 5400 of 1983 and sought direction to treat him as a Scheduled Tribe in pursuance of the Community Certificate dated 12. 1. 1979 given by the Judicial First Class Magistrate. The said writ petition was posted before a Division Bench. The Bench on 1. 8. 1984 passed final orders in these words: "in the light of the decision rendered by this Court in W. P. No. 738 of 1982 and W. P. Nos. 1235 and 1236 of 1983, the certificate issued by the Judicial First Class Magistrate being a competent certificate, as prescribed by the circular issued by the Government of India, the first respondent was in error in directing the petitioner to secure a further community certificate from the Revenue Divisional Officer. Hence, the writ petition is allowed. There will be no order as to costs. "

(3.) IT is difficult on the facts of the instant case to acknowledge that the respondent bank has a bona fide concern for the interests of the Scheduled Tribes and that it acted with a genuine desire to see that no one like the petitioner, who did not belong to any Scheduled Tribe, was allowed to usurp the opportunity of the Scheduled Tribe. There can be cases where a person who does not belong to a reserved category obtains a certificate by misrepresentation or fraud and enters a service as a candidate belonging to a reserved category. On detection of misrepresentation or fraud or a strong suspicion based, however, on relevant materials, the employer may/might institute an enquiry and in course of the enquiry seek verifi cation from competent authorities for affirmation or otherwise of the caste/ community certificate. Any! enquiry, however, which is held behind the back of the affected employee, will be of no avail to the employer and even if there are some informations received from sources which the employer has explored, the employee shall be entitled to be informed about such materials which are likely to be used against him and afforded opportunity to rebut and being heard before any decision either to cancel the appointment or to terminate the service is taken.