ARCHANA MOURYA Vs. M P BHOJ OPEN UNIVERSITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is directed against an action of Respondent-University of initiating an enquiry and calling her explanation with respect to obtaining the caste certificate, on the grounds that such an enquiry cannot be initiated or conducted by the Respondent- University or its authorities in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court as the verification of the caste certificate is required to be done by a High Power Screening Committee. It is further contended by the petitioner that to verify about the caste of the petitioner, only the Committee constituted by the State Government in terms of the directives of the Apex Court is the competent authority and, as such, initiation of such a proceeding by the respondent is per se illegal and is liable to be quashed. The petitioner has claimed the relief to the effect that by an appropriate writ this Court may declare that the decision taken by the respondent to cancel the appointment of petitioner mentioned in the letter dated 2-12-2005, is illegal and not sustainable in the eye of law. A further relief is claimed to the effect that the respondent be restrained to cancel the appointment of petitioner made pursuant to selection held on 27-5-2003 and by an appropriate writ the respondent be commanded to permit the petitioner to continue on the post of Computer Operator regularly and without any obstruction or hindrance.

(2.) Briefly stated facts of the case are that the petitioner belongs to the General category, but she got married to a member of Scheduled Caste community. It is the case of the petitioner that she has obtained a degree of Graduation in Science in the year 1993 from Barkatulla University, did her Post Graduation in Computer Application in the year 1995 from the very same University. The respondent had invited applications for appointment on the post of Computer Operator. The petitioner submitted her application along with the relevant documents, she claims to be entitled for grant of benefit of reservation as member of Scheduled Caste. The application of the petitioner was scrutinised, she was called for interview and, thereafter, the selection was made. It is contended by the petitioner that she submitted the certificate of caste of her husband indicating that she too belongs to Scheduled Caste community after marriage with the said person. The petitioner was selected and later was given an order of appointment on 4-6-2003 by the respondent. The petitioner joined the post and started working continuously and uninterruptedly. All of a sudden on 2-12-2005, the petitioner was communicated a notice by the respondent indicating therein that the petitioner was appointed against a post which was reserved for the Scheduled Caste category, whereas, the petitioner belongs to General category. It was alleged that the appointment of the petitioner was illegal and, therefore, a decision has been taken to cancel the same. The petitioner was called upon to submit her explanation within fifteen days. Such a letter issued to the petitioner is produced with the petition as Annexure-P/5 and this letter is impugned in the writ petition.

(3.) The stand taken by the petitioner is further that she submitted the explanation and put all the material which were in her possession for consideration before the authorities of respondent. It was categorically pointed out by the petitioner that she has not obtained any employment by practising fraud. Right from the very beginning, the fact was stated by the petitioner that after her marriage, the caste status of the petitioner was changed because she married to a person belonging to Scheduled Caste Community. It was pointed out by the petitioner that this fact was well stated before making appointment on the post, by submitting the application and at that time, the authorities of the respondent were satisfied that the petitioner belongs to Scheduled Caste community. However, for a long period, nothing was communicated and on 6-7-2007, the petitioner was called in the office of Registrar of the respondent and was told that her reply was not satisfactory, therefore, the petitioner may submit additional reply or the final order will be passed. Thus, it is contended by the petitioner that without holding any enquiry, as is required under the directives of the Apex Court given in the case of Ku. Madhuri Patil and another v. Additional Commissioner Tribal Development and others, 1994 6 SCC 241, it could not have been said that the petitioner was not entitled to the benefit of reservation. It has been categorically said that all the State Government shall constitute a committee of three officers, namely; (i) an Additional or Joint Secretary or any Officer higher in rank of the Director of the concerned department; (ii) the Director Social Welfare/Tribal Welfare/Backward Class Welfare as the case may be and (iii) in the case of Scheduled Caste another Officer who has intimate knowledge in the verification and issuance of the social status certificate. In the case of Scheduled Tribe, the Research Officer, who has intimate knowledge in identifying the tribes, tribal community parts or groups of tribes or tribal communities be included in the Committee. Thus, it is contended that the respondent or its officials were not authorised by the Apex Court to conduct any such enquiry with respect to the social status of the petitioner in a particular caste and, as such, the entire proceedings initiated against the petitioner by the respondent were liable to be quashed.