VIDYA G NAIK Vs. SYNDICATE BANK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Pursuant to an advertisement published by the Banking Service Recruitment Board in May, 1983, for recruitment to various posts, including the post of clerks, which were reserved for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes candidates, the petitioner applied for being considered for filling up one of the reserved posts. The petitioner claimed to be a member of the Marati Tribe, which is a recognised Scheduled Tribe, by virtue of her marriage to one K. Gobardhan Naik, and filed a caste certificate issued by the Tahasildar, Puttar, Dakshina Kannada, Karnataka, to that effect on 10th November, 1983. The petitioner was called for an interview and was duly selected for appointment and on 27th January, 1984, she joined her duties as clerk in the Branch office of the bank at Jalsoor, Karnataka.

(2.) While the petitioner was working at the Jayanagar Branch of the bank at Bangalore, she was served with a notice dated 7th August, 1996, issued by the Divisional Manager (Vigilance), informing her that although she had filed a certificate that she belonged to the Marati Tribe, in reality she was a Gowda Saraswath Brahmin by birth and that she could not claim to be a member of a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe merely because she had married a person belonging to a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe. On the basis of the above, it was alleged that the petitioner had made a false declaration to the Bank for securing an entry into the service of the Bank in respect of a vacancy reserved for candidates belonging to the Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes. The petitioner was asked to submit her explanation in respect of the above within seven days of receipt of the letter.

(3.) The petitioner replied to the aforesaid letter on 2nd October, 1986, stating that by reason of her marriage to a member of a Scheduled Tribe according to the rites of her husband's community, she genuinely was of the view that she belonged to her husband's community. The petitioner referred to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of N.E.Horo v. Jahan Ara Jaipal Singh, reported in AIR 1972 SC at page 1840, in support of the explanation offered by her.