HAREKRISHNA ROY Vs. INSPECTOR GENERAL OF PRISONS; STATE OF TRIPURA; DIRECTOR OF WELFARE OF SCS & OBCS; SUPERINTENDENT OF CENTRAL JAIL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Memorandum dated 28.07.2008, Annexure-8 to the writ petition, whereby the petitioner has been dismissed from the service as L.D. Clerk under the Prisons Directorate in pursuance to the order dated 15.05.2007, by the State Level Scrutiny Committee cancelling his SC Certificate, has been assailed in this writ petition. Even the show cause notice dated 04.08.2005, Annexure-3 to the writ petition, whereby the petitioner was asked to represent on the enquiry report furnished by the Vigilance Officer on the complaint that the petitioner does not belong to the Scheduled Caste community and despite that he has obtained the Scheduled Caste Certificate and based on the said Certificate, he has obtained his appointment as the LDC under the Prisons Directorate, has also been challenged alongwith the memorandum dated 25.05.2008, Annexure-5 to the writ petition, issued by the Inspector General of Prisons, asking the petitioner to submit his representation, why appropriate action shall not be taken against him for unbecoming conduct by production of SC certificate which was not genuine. The petitioner has also challenged the memorandum dated 28.07.2008, Annexure-9 to the writ petition, whereby the Superintendent of Central Jail, Agartala asked the petitioner to return the Government properties lying with him forthwith. The petitioner has alleged in the writ petition in a specified manner that till he received the memorandum dated 28.07.2008, Annexure-8 to the writ petition, he did not know that the State Level Scrutiny Committee by its order dated 15.05.2007 had cancelled the Scheduled Caste Certificate issued in his favour. For the first time, he came to know that the State Level Scrutiny Committee had cancelled the Scheduled Caste Certificate, even though he belongs to the Scheduled Caste community. He has further asserted that at no point of time he was called upon to lay materials to show that he belongs to the Scheduled Caste community. In fact, the petitioner has asserted that the State Level Scrutiny Committee did not ever draw up any proceeding against the petitioner nor was he ever apprised by anyone that the State Level Scrutiny Committee had undertaken any proceeding to ascertain the social status of the petitioner. Thus he has contended that he has failed to pursuade him to understand how the State Level Scrutiny Committee had carried out the proceeding to determine the caste status of the petitioner. The petitioner has further asserted that at no point of time the State Level Scrutiny Committee had ever expressed that there was doubt about the genuineness of the social status certificate. Thus the petitioner was denied from reasonable opportunity to defend his social status. But, on the basis of such an arbitrary action by the State Level Scrutiny Committee, the caste status certificate of the petitioner was cancelled and on the basis of the said order of cancellation, the petitioner was 'dismissed' from the service by the memorandum dated 28.07.2008, Annexure-8 to the writ petition.

(2.) The petitioner has further asserted that he was not appointed against the post reserved for the Scheduled Caste candidate and, as such, the cancellation of the certificate cannot provide necessary ground for 'dismissal' or termination of the petitioner, in terms of Section 8 (11)(a) of the Tripura Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Reservation of Vacancies in Services and Posts) Act, 1991, inasmuch as the said section postulates only termination, but the authority has not been granted any power to dismiss someone from the service for cancellation of the social status certificate.

(3.) By filing counter-affidavit, the respondents No. 1 to 4, have categorically disputed the allegations of the petitioner and contended that all reasonable opportunities were provided to the petitioner, but the petitioner has deliberately suppressed those facts for playing fraud on this count. The respondents have projected their case by stating that the petitioner got himself registered in the Sub-Regional Employment Exchange Office as Scheduled Caste unemployed. In the year 1993, when two posts of Lower Division Clerk (one for the SC and another for the ST) fell vacant, on requisition, the Sub-Regional Employment Exchange Office sent a list of 48 candidates by their letter dated 11.02.1994, wherein the petitioner's name had figured. Thereafter, the Prison Directorate had conducted written and oral test for selection of Lower Division Clerk in the year 1995. The Selection Committee recommended the name of the petitioner alongwith others. Subsequently, selection of one Smt. Minu Das was cancelled as her Scheduled Caste Certificate was not genuine. After cancellation, Smt. Minu Das filed a writ petition before the High Court, being Civil Rule No.485/1995 for publication of the list of successful candidates before the appointments are made. Accordingly, it was directed. In compliance of the said order of the High Court, a list of the Scheduled Caste candidates as per merit was published in the Notice Board by the notice dated 29.06.1996, where the petitioner's name had found its place at serial No.1.