DAYARAM Vs. SUDHIR BATHAM AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been filed originally under section 10 of the Letters Patent and subsequently it is registered as a writ appeal under section 2(1) of the of the M.P. Uchha Nyayalaya (Khand Nyayapeeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005 and challenge in the same is made to an order-dated 9.5.2003 passed by the writ court.

(2.) Respondents Sudhir Batham, Ranjeet Singh and Manmohan Rajak claim to be persons belonging to 'dhobi' community. In a recruitment process conducted by the authorities of Moulana Azad College of Technology/Moulana Azad National Institute of Technology, Bhopal, Sudhir Batham was appointed on 9.8.1988 as Assistant Grade I. Similarly, Ranjeet Singh was appointed as an Assistant Storekeeper on 3.3.1992; and Manmohan Rajak was appointed as Store Keeper on 18.3.1992. They were appointed in the category of persons belonging to the scheduled caste community on the ground that they belong to the 'dhobi' community, a reserved category. After their appointment on the dates as indicated hereinabove, they were confirmed in the service on 23.2.1996. It seems that on the ground that they have secured employment by producing false certificates of their caste status, appellant Dayaram and certain other persons made a complaint. Based on the same, report was called for from the Collector and the services terminated vide order-dated 20.4.2000. The termination was done based on some report submitted by Collector Bhopal, on 20.1.2000. The termination was challenged by all these persons by filing writ petition before this Court being W.P. No.2666/2000, and an order was passed by this Court on 26.6.2001, based on the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Madhuri Patil Vs. Additional Commissioner, 1995 AIR(SC) 94, to the effect that the controversy be referred to the High Power Caste Scrutiny Committee and the Committee was directed to decide the matter within three months. The respondents appeared before the Committee, filed their affidavits and various documents and the Committee referred all these documents to the Superintendent of Police, Bhopal for investigation and inquiry.

(3.) Superintendent of Police, Bhopal after investigation and inquiry submitted a report on 11.9.2001 and in a detailed report submitted that all the three respondents 1 to 3 were born in Bhopal, their primary education took place in Bhopal and it was found that their forefathers were also residents of Bhopal. Accordingly, the genuineness of the caste certificate was approved. Thereafter, the matter was again inquired into by the Collector and the Collector also sent reports on 26.7.2000 and 8.1.2001, and in the report the Collector also certified that the caste certificate issued to respondents 1 to 3 are genuine, their forefathers were residents of Bhopal and in the case of certain applicants, reports were called for from the Naib Tehsildar, Sohagpur; Collector, Indore, who also confirmed the findings. However, when these reports were placed before the High Power Caste Scrutiny Committee, the High Power Committee did not accept these reports and based on certain documents which were available to show that respondents like Ranjeet Singh had some education in Indore, rejected the report and, therefore, employees namely Sudhir Batham, Ranjeet Singh and Manmohan Rajak again approached this Court in Writ Petition No. 2074/2002. This writ court evaluated the entire matter in the backdrop of the law laid down in the case of State of Maharashtra Vs. Milind, 2001 AIR(SC) 393, and passed a detailed order and found that in the light of the exhaustive report submitted by the Superintendent of Police and the Collector, the approach of the High Power Committee in the matter of taking a different view was not reasonable. It was beyond the powers of the High Power Committee and in paragraphs 11 and 12, the learned writ court found that the Committee has taken an unreasonable decision, which is arbitrary in nature and accepting the report of the Collector and the Superintendent of Police, it was held that merely because for some period the person concerned had taken education in places like Indore, Hoshangabad, their claim cannot be rejected. Accepting the report submitted by the Superintendent of Police and the Collector, the learned court allowed the writ petition, quashed the termination and directed for their reinstatement with backwages. It is against this order that this writ appeal has been filed by the present appellant Dayaram, who seems to be complainant and is aggrieved by the matter.