M. SAROJA DEVI Vs. SYNDICATE BANK AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IT is the case of the petitioner that she belong to Valmiki caste which has been classified as Scheduled Tribe Community and the Tahsildar, Kurnool issued Caste Certificate dated 03.06.1974, on the basis of which, she joined in the respondent Bank as clerk on 23.04.1977 and rendered service without any blemish. On a reference made by the Respondent Bank to the District Collector, Kurnool, the Collector vide proceedings Rc. C6/2026/M/2000, dated 06.07.2001 has confirmed that the Caste Certificate issued to the petitioner on the date of appointment as genuine, but it has also been mentioned in the above proceedings that the said Valmiki caste has been subsequently deleted from the reserved category.

(2.) WHILE so, the respondent Bank addressed letter dated 20.06.2000 to the District Collector, Kurnool to verify the social status of the petitioner. A show -cause notice dated 10.10.2000 was served on the petitioner by the District Collector, Kurnool, directing her to appear before the Joint Collector and Chairman of the Scrutiny Committee, Kurnool on 22.10.2000 for personal hearing and for production of documentary evidence in support of her caste. Accordingly, she appeared before the authorities on 22.10.2000 and produced Caste Certificate dated 03.06.1974 issued by the Tahsildar and first page of her father's service register. But thereafter, the District Collector, Kurnool, came to the conclusion that the petitioner belong to Boya Caste under BC 'A' Group and cancelled the Caste Certificate issued to the petitioner vide proceedings D. Dis.(C8)2036/M/2000, dated 26.11.2001. Basing on the said proceedings, the respondent Bank resorted to terminate the appointment of the petitioner vide proceedings 81/ZOH PS (AS)/IF 230445, dated 09.01.2002. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition is filed.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner Dr. P.B. Vijay Kumar submits that the concerned authorities, after verifying the claim of the petitioner, issued Caste Certificate in favour of the petitioner on 03.06.1974 stating that she belongs to Schedule Tribe Community. Basing on the same, the petitioner was appointed in the respondent Bank in the year 1977. When the respondent Bank addressed letter dated 05.05.2001 to the District Collector, Kurnool for verification of Caste Certificate issued to the petitioner, the District Collector, Kurnool, clearly stated that the certificate obtained by the petitioner as on the date of appointment is genuine, but stated that subsequently the caste was deleted from reserved category. As such, the petitioner has neither played any fraud nor produced any false Caste Certificate. He would further contend that the respondent Bank, without considering the said aspect, only basing on the cancellation of the Caste Certificate by the District Collector by proceedings dated 26.11.20901, terminated the services of the petitioner holding that the petitioner produced false and fabricated Caste Certificate, without holding further enquiry. He further contended that while cancelling the Caste Certificate of the petitioner, the District Collector has not stated that the petitioner has obtained the same by playing fraud. He would further contend that when similar Caste Certificates were issued to others by the District Collector, Ananthapur, the District Collector, Anantapur District, also cancelled the Caste Certificates issued to an individual, clearly stating that there is no mala fide intention on the part of the said individual in obtaining the said Caste Certificate and also found that the said certificates were issued like in the case of the petitioner, without properly verifying the rule position. There was some confusion regarding issuance of Caste Certificate in the case of 'Valmiki' caste. He also submits that the petitioner rendered considerable length of service and this Court also granted interim stay of impugned orders in the writ petition on 25.01.2002 and when Vacate Petition was filed, the stay was made absolute on 12.09.2002 and petitioner continued her service and got retired on 30.11.2013. Though the petitioner was allowed to retire, the respondents are not paying pensionary benefits because of the pendency of the writ petition.