URMILA KOSHTI Vs. SECRETARY M P S E

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this petition, the petitioner who was employed as a Stenographer in the erstwhile M.P. State Electricity Board, has assailed the validity of the order dated 16-4-2004 by which the services of the petitioner have been terminated. In order to appreciate the petitioner's grievance, few facts need mention, which are stated infra. The petitioner obtained a caste certificate in 8-10-1984 on the ground that she is a member of the Scheduled Tribe community being "Halba". On the basis of the aforesaid caste certificate, the petitioner was given the appointment on the post of Stenographer on 12-2-1990 in the erstwhile M.P. State Electricity Board. It appears that several complaints were received by the respondent-Board from time to time with regard to procurement of employment on the basis of false caste certificates. Accordingly, the respondent-Board took a decision on 19-12-1996 to verify the caste certificates, pursuant to which 43 cases were referred for scrutiny. The Joint Director of the Board, thereafter issued a notice to the petitioner by which she was asked to produce evidence with regard to her status as person belonging to Scheduled Tribe category. However, the petitioner failed to adduce any evidence. Thereupon, a charge-sheet was issued to the petitioner and a departmental enquiry was held in which the caste certificate issued in favour of the petitioner was found to be false. Accordingly, vide order dated 16-11-2004, the services of the petitioner were terminated. The petitioner filed a writ petition namely, W.P. No. 11107/08 (s) in which the petitioner challenged the action of the respondents in cancelling the caste certificate issued to the petitioner. The aforesaid writ petition was disposed of by a Bench of this Court vide order dated 5-9-2007 with a direction to examine the validity of the caste certificate by High Power Scrutiny Committee which was constituted in view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Madhuri Patil's case . Thereupon, the matter was referred to the High Power Scrutiny Committee which also vide order dated 6-1-2009 recommended the cancellation of the caste certificate. Thereafter, the petitioner obtained certain additional documents and filed an application for review before the High Power Scrutiny Committee however, the application submitted by the petitioner failed to evoke any response. Thereupon, the petitioner approached this Court by filing another writ petition namely W.P. No. 5059/2009 which was disposed of by a Bench of this Court vide order dated 15-6-2009 with the direction to the respondents therein to take into consideration the documents which were obtained by the petitioner. In compliance of the directions issued by this Court, the High Power Scrutiny Committee once again examined the case of the petitioner and vide order dated 18-7-2011 upheld its previous decision and found that the caste certificate has wrongly been issued to the petitioner. In the aforesaid factual background, the petitioner has approached this Court.

(2.) Learned Counsel for the petitioner while inviting the attention of this Court to Paragraph 38 of the judgment in the case of State of Maharashtra Vs. Milind and others, 2001 AIR(SC) 393, submitted that all the admissions and appointments which have attained finality were protected by the Supreme Court and the Supreme Court itself had given prospective effect to the law laid down by it in the case of Milind . It is further submitted that the Supreme Court in the case of R. Vishwanatha Pillai Vs. State of Kerala and others, 2004 AIR(SC) 1469, was not dealing with the case of person belonging to "Halba" community, whereas cases of Bank of India and another Vs. Avinash Mandivikar, 2005 4 MPLJ 303 and Additional General Manager, Human Resources, BHEL Ltd. Vs. Suresh Ramkrishna Burde, 2007 5 SCC 336 were cases where the appointments were obtained by producing forged documents which is not the case here. It was further submitted that a Bench of two Judges of the Supreme Court in the case of Punjab National Bank and another Vs. Vilas s/o Govindrao Bokade and another, 2008 14 SCC 545, has extended the benefit of the ratio laid down in Milind's case , to a case of appointment. It is also submitted that in somewhat similar facts, the benefit of law laid down by the Supreme Court has been extended by the Supreme Court in the case of Kavita Solunke Vs. State of Maharashtra and others, 2012 8 SCC 430. Learned Counsel for the petitioner while placing reliance on the decisions in the case of Jabalpur Bus Operators Association Vs. State of M.P. and others, 2003 1 MPHT 226, has urged that the ratio laid down in Milind's case , which is a decision rendered by the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court, has not been explained by the Co-ordinate Bench and, therefore, the directions issued in Paragraph 38 of the judgment would apply to the case of the petitioner as well. It is further urged that the direction issued by the Supreme Court that the admissions and appointments which have attained finality will not be affected by the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Milind , has not been issued under Article 142 of the Constitution of India. Alternatively, learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner be granted the liberty to challenge the reports submitted by the High Power Scrutiny Committee dated 6-1-2009 and 18-7-2011 by way of separate writ petition.

(3.) On the other hand, Shri Anoop Nair, learned Counsel for respondent No. 1 submitted that in view of the recommendations of the High Power Scrutiny Committee, the petitioner is not entitled to the benefit of continuance of service. It is further submitted that petitioner does not belong to Scheduled Tribe and, therefore, she is not entitled to benefit of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Milind . Learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 has placed reliance on the recommendations of the High Power Scrutiny Committee and had submitted that petitioner is not a member of Scheduled Tribe community and, therefore, she is not entitled to benefit of law laid down by Supreme Court in Milind's case .