IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU R DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF JANUARY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE R. DEVDAS WRIT PETITION NOS.56358-56364/2014 (GM-CC) C/W WRIT PETITION NOS.45979/2015 (S-RES), 45947-45956/2015 (GM-CC) AND WRIT PETITION NOS.52084-52085/2015 (GM-CC) IN W. P. NOS.56358-56364/2014: BETWEEN 1. SMT. H. R. SUMANGALA W/O PRAKASH RAO, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, WORKING AS SINGLE WINDOW OPERATOR, STATE BANK OF MYSORE, BANGALORE MAIN BRANCH, K. G. ROAD, BANGALORE-560 009 RESIDING AT NO.1574, 6TH MAIN, ‘E’ BLOCK, II STAGE, RAJAJINAGAR, BANGALORE-560 010.
2. SRI. H. R. SATHYANARAYANA S/O LATE RAMAKRISHNA, AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, WORKING AS SPECIAL ASSISTANT, STATE BANK OF MYSORE, VINOBHANAGAR BRANCH, SHIMOGA-577 204.
3. SRI. H. S. HIRIYANNAIAH S/O SHANTHAPPA, AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, WORKING AS SPECIAL ASSISTANT, SHIMOGA MAIN BRANCH, SHIMOGA-577 201.
4. SRI. RAGHAVENDRA, S.S.B. S/O B. NAGAPPA, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, WORKING AS HEAD CASHIER, STATE BANK OF MYSORE, APMC YARD, SHIMOGA-577 204.
5. SRI. SUBHASH.M S/O MARUTHI RAO, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, WORKING AS OFFICER, JUNIOR MANAGEMENT GRADE SCALE-I, STATE BANK OF MYSORE, BAZAAR BRANCH, SHIMOGA-577 201.
6. SRI. ANNAPPA.N S/O LATE NARAYANAPPA, AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, WORKING AS SPECIAL ASSISTANT, STATE BANK OF MYSORE, PEARLITE INDUSTRIAL ESTATE BRANCH, N. T. ROAD, SHIMOGA-577 201.
7. SRI. MADHUKAR.M.NAIK S/O MANJUNATH DENU NAIK, AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, WORKING AS OFFICER, JUNIOR MANAGEMENT GRADE SCALE-I, STATE BANK OF MYSORE, KUDRIGE BRANCH, SAMSHI HONNAVAR, UTTARA KANNADA DISTRICT – 571231.
... PETITIONERS (BY SRI. P. S. RAJAGOPAL, SR. ADVOCATE FOR SRI. JAYANTH DEVKUMAR, ADVOCATE ) AND 1. THE ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE DIRECTORATE OF CIVIL RIGHTS ENFORCEMENT, NO.1, TECHNICAL EDUCATION BUILDING, PALACE ROAD, BANGALORE-560 001.
2. STATE BANK OF INDIA, HEAD OFFICE, K. G. ROAD, BANGALORE-560 009, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR.
... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. C. JAGADISH, SPL. GOVT. ADVOCATE FOR R1; SRI. K. SUBHA ANANTHI, ADVOCATE FOR R2) THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE COMMUNICATION DATED 26.9.2014 FROM THE R-1 VIDE ANNEXURE-A, DIRECT THE R-2 BANK TO TERMINATE THE SERVICES OF THE PETITIONERS WITH IMMEDIATE EFFECT AS BEING ARBITRARY, ILLEGAL AND WITHOUT AUTHORITY OF LAW AND ETC.
IN W.P.NO.45979/2015 BETWEEN SHRI HUCHARAYA SWAMY S/O LATE SHRI GOVINDAPPA AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS OCCUPATION: CLERK IN CANARA BANK RIPPONPET BRANCH SHIMOGA DISTRICT.
... PETITIONER (BY SRI. G. S. BHAT, ADVOCATE) AND 1. CANARA BANK HEAD OFFICE J C ROAD BENGALURU-560 002 REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR.
2. DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER CANARA BANK CIRCLE OFFICE KUVEMPU ROAD SHIMOGA-577 201.
3. THE DIRECTOR CIVIL RIGHTS ENFORCEMENT REPRESENTED BY ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE NO.1, TECHNICAL EDUCATION BLDG. PALACE ROAD BENGALURU-560 001.
(BY SRI T. P. MUTHANNA, ADVOCATE FOR R1, ... RESPONDENTS SRI C. JAGADEESH, SPL. GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR R3; NOTICE TO R2 SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE ENTIRE RECORDS FROM THE R-2 VIDE ANNEXURE-A, QUASH THE ORDER / SHOWCAUSE NOTICE DTD: 21.10.2015 PASSED BY R-2 VIDE ANNEXURE-A AND ETC.
IN WRIT PETITION NOS.45947- 45956/2015: BETWEEN 1. K. JAIRAJ S/O LATE K. MONAPPA, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, WORKING AS SPECIAL ASSISTANT, ACCOUNTS SECTION, CANARA BANK, CIRCLE OFFICE BUILDING, BALMATTA ROAD, MANGALORE-575 002.
2. SMT. K. NIRMALA W/O K. SURESH RAO, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS WORKING AS SINGLE WINDOW OPERATOR-A, CANARA BANK, BANDER BRANCH, MANGALORE-575 001.
3. U. A. RAJEEVA S/O ANNAIAH, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, WORKING AS CLERK, CANARA BANK, GANGULI BRANCH, KUNDAPUR TALUK, UDUPI DISTRICT.
4. K. V. SHANKAR S/O K. VENKATARAMANA, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, WORKING AS SPECIAL ASSISTANT, CANARA BANK, PADUBIDRI-574 111, UDUPI DISTRICT.
5. G. DINESH S/O LATE SADASIVA RAO, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, WORKING AS CLERK, CANARA BANK, KAVOOR, MANGALORE-575 803.
6. D. K. PRABHAKAR S/O LATE D. K. VENKATESH, WORKING AS CLERK, CANARA BANK, KUNDAPURA BRANCH, KUNDAPURA-576 201, UDUPI DISTRICT.
7. H. ISHWARA S/O LATE H. GANGAIAH, AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, WORKING AS OFFICER, CANARA BANK, C. N. ROAD, BHADRAVATHI, SHIMOGA DISTRICT.
8. S. SURESH S/O S. HANUMANTHAPPA, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, WORKING AS PROBATIONARY OFFICER, CANARA BANK, BADRAVATHI, JANNAPURA BRANCH, SHIMOGA.
9. SMT. MUKTHA S. RAO W/O SRINIVASA RAO, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, WORKING AS SINGLE WINDOW OPERATOR-A, CANARA BANK, RAJARAJESWARINAGAR BRANCH, BANGALORE-560 098.
10. KESHAVA SHERVEGAR S/O SRINIVASA, AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, WORKING AS MANAGER, CANARA BANK, ZONAL INSPECTORATE, SPENCER’S TOWER, M. G. ROAD, BANGALORE-560 001.
... PETITIONERS (BY SRI M. NAGA PRASANNA, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR M/S. M. NAGA PRASANNA ASSTS, ADVOCATES) AND 1. CANARA BANK A BODY CONSTITUTED UNDER THE BANKING COMPANIES (ACQUISITION & TRANSFER OF UNDERTAKINGS) ACT, 1970 REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR & CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, HEAD OFFICE, J. C. ROAD, BANGALORE- 560002.
2. THE ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, DIRECTORATE OF CIVIL RIGHTS ENFORCEMENT, NO.1, TECHNICAL EDUCATION BUILDING, PALACE ROAD, BANGALORE-560 001.
... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI T. P. MUTHANNA, ADVOCATE FOR R1; SRI C. JAGADISH, ADVOCATE FOR R2) THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE ENTIRE RECORDS LEADING TO ISSUANCE OF SHOW CAUSE NOTICES DATED 20.10.2015 AND 21.10.2015 TO THE PETITIONERS, QUASH THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICES ALL DTD:20.10.2015 AND 21.10.2015 (UNDER ANNEXURES-Z, Z1 TO Z9) ISSUED TO PETITIONER-1 TO 10 RESPECTIVELY BY THE R-1 / BANK AND GRANT ALL CONSEQUENTIAL BENEFITS AND ETC.
IN WRIT PETITION NOS.52084-52085/2015 BETWEEN 1. KARNATAKA STATE KOTEGAR VIDYAVARDHAKA SANGHA, HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT NO.5/289-C, SHUBAM, OPP:PREMIER HEIGHTS, 1ST MAIN, NEAR KUNJI BETTU, UDUPI-576102, RERPESENTED BY ITS HON. PRESIDENT, DR.K.UMESHWAR.
2. K. JAIRAJ S/O LATE K. MONAPPA, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, RESIDING AT "BENAKA", NETHRAVATHI LAY-OUT, KANKANADY POST, MANGALORE-575002.
... PETITIONERS (BY SRI M. NAGAPRASANNA, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR M/S. M. NAGAPRASANNA ASSTS, ADVOCATES) AND STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, SOCIAL WELFARE DEPARTMENT, VIKAS SOUDHA, DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU-560001.
... RESPONDENT (BY SRI C. JAGADISH, SPL. GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE) THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE ENTIRE RECORDS LEADING TO THE CIRCULAR DTD:14.06.2011, QUASH CIRCULAR DTD:14.06.2011 (UNDER ANNEXURE-H TO THE WRIT PETITION) ISSUED BY THE R-1 BY ISSUE OF A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI IN SO FAR AS IT CONCERNS CLAUSE-4 THEREOF READING :
"(4) THE BENEFIT OF G.O. AT REF.NO.1 & 2 IS NOT APPLICABLE TO THE EMPLOYEES / OFFICERS OF CENTRAL GOVERNEMNT I.E., GOVERNMENT OF INDIA AND ITS AGENCIES" AND GRANT ALL CONSEQUENTIAL BENEFITS AND ETC.
THESE WRIT PETITIONS HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED ON 07.01.2019 AND COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDERS, THIS DAY, THIS COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
COMMON ORDER The petitioners in these batch of writ petitions are Bank employees. Since the petitioners have raised common grounds, these petitions are heard and disposed of by this common order.
2. The petitioners joined the services of the Bank during various periods commencing from 1979 to 1982. It is undisputed that the petitioners were appointed on the basis of caste certificates, claiming that they belonged to ‘Kotegar community’, which according to the petitioners includes the caste ‘Rama Kshatriya’, which is a synonym of ‘Kotegar community’. Admittedly, ‘Kotegar community’, in terms of the Presidential notification is a Scheduled caste. The District Caste Verification Committee, in some of the cases pertaining to the petitioners, had declined to issue validity certificate on the ground that the petitioners belonged to ‘Rama Kshatriya’ community which is not a Scheduled Caste as notified in the Presidential Notification. The orders of rejection were passed in the year 1998. Admittedly, no action was initiated by the Bank authorities even after the District Caste Verification Committee declined to issue validity certificates. Thereafter, it appears that the State Government issued a Government order dated 11.03.2002 granting amnesty to all such persons who had secured jobs on the basis of caste certificates claiming that they belonged to Scheduled Tribe, though they belonged to Parivaara, Talwara, Maaleru, Kuruba, Besta and Koli communities. Similarly, another Government Order dated 29.03.2003 was issued by the State Government granting amnesty to all such persons who had secured jobs on the basis of caste certificates claiming that they belonged to ‘Kotegar community’ though persons belonging to Rama Kshatriya, Kote Kshatriya, Kotegara, Koteyava, Koteyara, Sherugara and Sarvegara, do not fall under the ‘Kotegar community’ which is a Scheduled Caste under the Presidential Notification. The protection sought to be granted by the State Government was to protect their employments with a condition that they shall be treated as general candidates and they shall not be eligible for benefit of reservation henceforth. Thereafter, another Circular dated 14.06.2011 was issued by the State Government clarifying the position that the benefit of reservation in education and public employment which protected the interest of such persons who were granted one-time amnesty under the Government Orders dated 11.03.2002 and 29.03.2003, was restricted only to persons who had secured employment under the State Government. In other words, it was clarified in the third Government order that the benefit under Government orders dated 11.03.2002 and 29.03.2003 is not extended to Central Government employees and Central Government undertakings.
3. It is contended by the petitioners that following the Government orders dated 11.03.2002 and 29.03.2003, the petitioners once again approached the District Caste Verification Committee and surrendered the caste certificates, following which the District Caste Verification Committee passed individual orders protecting the employment, in terms of the Government order dated 11.03.2002, subject to the condition that they shall not avail the benefit of reservation henceforth. Such orders were issued in the year 2008-09.
4. It appears that the respondent-Additional Director General of Police, Directorate of Civil Rights Enforcement, Bangalore, has communicated to the authorities of the respective Banks, during September 2014, that the petitioners had obtained employment on the basis of production of false caste certificates and in the light of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of R.Vishwanatha Pillai Vs. State of Kerala and Others reported in AIR 2004 SC 1469, the Bank authorities were called upon to take action to dismiss the petitioners from service, at the earliest. In some of the cases, the Bank authorities have issued show-cause notices to the respective petitioners herein, while in the other cases, though the show- cause notices were not issued, the bank authorities have brought to the notice of the concerned petitioners about the communication sent by the Additional Director General of Police. In W.P.No.45979/2015 the petitioner was dismissed from service on 29.08.1989 for having produced false caste certificate. After several rounds of litigation, the petitioner claims to have secured an order of protection from the Commissioner, Social Welfare Department, by order dated 16.03.2006. The petitioner further contends that the respondent-Bank has issued a show-cause notice dated 21.10.2015, at the instance of the Directorate of Civil Rights Enforcement. Being aggrieved, the petitioners in all these petitions are before this Court in these writ petitions.
5. Learned Senior Counsel Shri. P. S. Rajagopal, appearing for some of the petitioners submitted that in the first batch of writ petitions, in W.P.Nos.56358-56364/2014, all the petitioners have attained the age of superannuation after filing of these petitions. However, it is contended that the criminal petitions filed by the petitioners challenging the charge sheets in the criminal proceedings initiated by the jurisdictional police for the offences punishable under Sections 196, 198, 420 of Indian Penal Code read with Section 3(1)(ix) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, were allowed and the criminal proceedings initiated were quashed on the ground that the caste certificates were surrendered in terms of the Government orders and therefore, the proceedings could not have been continued against the petitioners herein. It is also contended that the Additional Director General of Police, CRE Cell, has no authority of law to direct the bank authorities to initiate action against the employees seeking their dismissal.
6. Learned Senior Counsel Shri. M. Nagaprasanna appearing for some of the petitioners submitted that in view of the authoritative pronouncement of the Hon’ble Apex Court comprising of three Judges, in the case of Chairman and Managing Director, FCI and Ors. Vs. Jagdish Balaram Bahira and others reported in AIR 2017 SC 3271, the withdrawal of benefits secured on the basis of a caste claim is a necessary consequence which flows from the invalidation of the caste claim. It is vehemently contended that in all these cases, the caste certificates were not invalidated, while it is an admitted fact that the caste certificates were surrendered voluntarily by the petitioners in view of the amnesty granted by the State Government. The learned Senior Counsel submitted that the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Chairman and Managing Director, FCI (supra) has taken into consideration all the judgments, starting from Kumari Madhuri Patil and Another Vs. Addl. Commissioner, Tribal Development and others reported in (1994) 6 SCC 241 to Nidhi Kaim and another Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and others (AIR 2017 SC 986). It is therefore contended that the Apex Court, inspite of coming to a conclusion that the employees therein had obtained appointment to a post or admission to educational institution secured on the basis of false caste claim, it has been held that the ‘invalidation’ of the caste or tribe claim upon verification would alone result in the appointment or, as the case may be, the admission being rendered void or non est. In other words, it is emphasized that the question of withdrawal of benefits on the basis of a caste claim would arise only when the caste claim is ‘invalidated’. It is therefore contended that since the petitioners have surrendered their caste certificates and the proceedings initiated by the competent authority has not resulted in ‘invalidation’ of the caste certificate, the action sought to be initiated, at this stage, cannot be sustained.
7. On the other hand, the learned Special Government Advocate, appearing on behalf of the State Government and the Additional Director General of Police, CRE Cell, submits that at least with respect to a few of the petitioners, the Caste Verification Committee had declined to validate the caste certificates, way back in the year 1998. Moreover, the State Government by issuance of a subsequent Circular dated 14.06.2011, clarified the position that the benefit flowing under the Government Orders dated 11.03.2002 and 29.03.2003 was restricted to State Government employees and employees of the State Government undertakings, while the benefit is not applicable to the employees/Officers of Central Government i.e., Government of India and its agencies. Following the said Circular, a Division Bench of this Court, in W.A.No.530/2007, by order dated 31.07.2012, refused to extend job protection even under the Government order dated 11.03.2002. It is pointed out by the learned Special Government Advocate that the Hon’ble Division Bench took note of the Circular dated 14.06.2011 and held that the order of the State Government cannot be extended to Central Government employees. It was further held that the Government order of the State Government cannot vest a right contrary to Articles 341 and 342 of the Constitution of India and neither can the Government order dilute a right vested in favour of genuine Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe candidates, under Articles 341 and 342. In that light, it was contended by the learned Special Government Advocate that the Government orders granting amnesty have been held to be bad in law.
8. The learned Special Government Advocate, further draws the attention of this Court to another judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Paduthota Ramachandra Vs. Union of India reported in ILR 1995 Kar. 2712. With reference to the said judgment, the learned Special Government Advocate submits that the evil of obtaining false caste certificates in the name of ‘Kotegar’ or ‘Metri’ and securing jobs reserved for SC/ST candidates, fell for the consideration of this Court as long back as in the year 1990. It is further submitted that the Division Bench categorically held that no Court could permit recording of evidence to conclude that a group of sub-castes or sub-tribes could be included in the list or should be excluded from the list and thereby appropriate exclusive jurisdiction which was conferred by the Constitution makers on the Parliament.
9. The learned Special Government Advocate, further brings to the notice of this Court a decision of another Division Bench of this Court in the case of The General Manager, The New India Assurance Co. Ltd., and others Vs. Sri Prakash Keshav Ganguli and others in W.A.No.2828/2011, which was decided on 13.05.2014. In that case too, similar question as to whether a person who had obtained a caste certificate stating that he belongs to ‘Koteyar’ caste and having surrendered the caste certificate to obtain the benefit flowing under the G.O. dated 11.03.2002 and 29.03.2003 issued by the State Government, could be removed from service or whether relief could be moulded as was done by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Maharastra Vs. Milind, (supra) and Punjab National Bank and Another Vs. Vilas, S/o Govindrao Bokade reported in (2009) 2 SCC (L & S) 143, where the benefit could be extended to protect the person from being dismissed from service, fell for consideration. It is seen that the Division Bench categorically held that the Government orders passed by the State Government could be simply ignored as the State Government had neither the authority nor the competence to amend or alter the Presidential orders. As a result, the order passed by the learned Single Judge, protecting the petitioner from dismissal, was set-aside and consequently, the dismissal of the employee was upheld.
10. The learned Special Government Advocate, therefore vehemently contends that the petitions are liable to be dismissed. Consequently, it is contended that a direction to the respondent-Bank authorities may be issued to dismiss the petitioners from service, with immediate effect.
11. Heard the learned Senior Counsels Sri.P.S.Rajagopal, Sri.M.Nagaprasanna and learned counsel Sri.G.S.Bhat for the petitioners; Sri.C.Jagadish, learned Special Government Advocate for the respondent-State Government and the Additional Director General of Police, Directorate of Civil Rights Enforcement (CRE Cell) and the learned counsels for the respondent-Banks.
12. On facts, it is admitted that the petitioners do not belong to ‘Koteyar’ community or any other community which is notified as Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe under the Presidential Notification. It is also an admitted fact that the petitioners secured employment in the respondent-Banks, on the basis of false caste certificates. It is also an admitted fact that the Caste Verification Committee declined to issue validity certificate to the petitioners when their caste certificates were sent for verification. The Caste Verification Committee has cancelled the caste certificates of some of the petitioners. Most importantly, the petitioners admit that they have surrendered their caste certificates, to obtain the benefit flowing under the Government orders dated 11.03.2002 and 29.03.2003, issued by the State Government.
13. As noted above, the respondent-State Government purported to grant one time amnesty to all such persons who had obtained false caste certificates. The protection sought to be given is that, subject to surrendering of the caste certificates, such persons shall not be liable for penal action and the issuing authority shall cancel such certificates. As a consequence, the benefit of reservation obtained by such persons, for the purpose of education or employment, based on the false caste certificate was sought to be protected by the respondent-State Government. The Government order further directed that all enquires pending before various departments, verification committee, appellate authorities, CRE Cell and other authorities shall stand abated or dropped. Cases pending before Courts were also directed to be withdrawn.
14. It is in this background that the petitioners contend that the Additional Director General of Police, Directorate of Civil Rights Enforcement could not have directed the respondent-Bank authorities to initiate action against the petitioners. It is the contention of the petitioners that the petitioners having surrendered their caste certificates way back in the year 2008-09 and the proceedings against the petitioners having been dropped or dismissed, the Directorate of CRE has no authority of law to direct initiation of action against the petitioners. It is also contended that the action is vitiated on account of delay and laches.
15. This very contention fell for consideration of their Lordships in the case of Chairman and Managing Director, FCI (supra). It would be beneficial to extract paragraph-4 of the judgment, which would succinctly capture the crux of the dispute. Paragraph-4 reads as follows:
4. The batch of cases with which the court is confronted involves individuals who sought the benefit of public employment on the basis of a claim to belong to a beneficiary group which has, upon investigation been found to be invalid. Despite the invalidation of the claim to belong to a Scheduled Caste or, as the case may be, a Scheduled Tribe of backward community, the intervention of the Court is invoked in the exercise of the power of judicial review. The basis for the invocation of jurisdiction lies in an assertion that equities arise upon a lapse of time and these equities are capable of being protected either by the High Court (in the exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226) or by this Court (when it discharges the constitutional function of doing complete justice under Article 142). The present batch of cases then raises the fundamental issue as to whether such equities are sustainable at law and, if so, the limits that define the jurisdiction of the court to protect individuals who have secured access to the benefit of reservation in spite of the fact that they do not belong to the caste, tribe or class for whom reservation is intended.
16. The Hon’ble Apex Court has painstakingly dissected all the previous judgments on the issue, starting from Kumari Madhuri Patil’s case (supra) to Nidhi Kaim’s case (supra). It was contended before the Apex Court that mere invalidation of the caste claim by the scrutiny committee would not entail the consequences of withdrawal of benefits or discharge from employment or cancellation of appointments which have become final prior to the decision of the Apex Court in State of Maharashtra Vs. Milind and Others reported in AIR 2001 SC 393. Protection was sought on similar grounds that Government circulars, orders and resolutions had granted one time amnesty, while punitive action could be taken only in cases where false caste certificates were obtained subsequent to the respective State enactments.
17. So far as the protection sought under Government orders is concerned, the same has been authoritatively negated by the Apex Court. In the case of Chairman and Managing Director, FCI (supra), at paragraph No.53, it is held as under:
53. Administrative circulars and Government resolutions are subservient to legislative mandate and cannot be contrary either to constitutional norms or statutory principles. Where a candidate has obtained an appointment to a post on the solemn basis that he or she belongs to a designated caste, tribe or class for whom the post is meant and it is found upon verification by the Scrutiny Committee that the claim is false, the services of such an individual cannot be protected by taking recourse to administrative circulars or resolutions. Protection of claims of a usurper is an act of deviance to the constitutional scheme as well as to statutory mandate. No Government resolution or circular can override constitutional or statutory norms. The principle that Government is bound by its own circulars is well-settled but it cannot apply in a situation such as present. Protecting the services of a candidate who is found not to belong to the community or tribe for whom the reservation is intended substantially encroaches upon legal rights of genuine members of the reserved communities whose just entitlements are negated by the grant of a seat to an ineligible person. In such a situation where the rights of genuine members of reserved groups or communities are liable to be affected detrimentally, Government circulars or resolutions cannot operate to their detriment.
18. Finally, when the intervention of the Apex Court was invoked in exercise of the power of judicial review, under Article 142 of the Constitution, it was held at paragraph-54 as under:
“54. ……When a candidate is found to have put forth a false claim of belonging to a designated case, tribe or class for whom a benefit is reserved, it would be a negation of the rule of law to exercise the jurisdiction under Article 142 to protect that individual. Societal good lies in ensuring probity. That is the only manner in which the sanctity of the system can be preserved. The legal system cannot be seen as an avenue to support those who make untrue claims to belong to a caste or tribe or socially and educationally backward class. These benefits are provided only to designated castes, tribes or classes in accordance with the constitutional scheme and cannot be usurped by those who do not belong to them. The credibility not merely of the legal system but also of the judicial process will be eroded if such claims are protected in exercise of the constitutional power conferred by Article 142 despite the state law.”
19. In the light of the authoritative decision of the Apex Court in Chairman and Managing Director, FCI (supra), this Court would not hesitate to hold that the continuance of the petitioners in the employment of the respondent-Banks is without authority of law. The fact that the petitioners surrendered the caste certificates, having admitted that they do not belong to a community listed as a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe under the Presidential notification, nothing further remains to be invalidated under the provisions of the Karnataka SC/ST and other BC (Reservation of Appointments, Etc.) Act, 1990.
20. The contention of the petitioners that the Additional Director General of Police, Directorate of Civil Rights Enforcement, has no authority of law to direct the respondent-Bank authorities to initiate action against the petitioners, cannot be countenanced. Sub-clause (2) of Rule 7-A empowers the Directorate of Civil Rights Enforcement Cell to take steps to prosecute such claimant who has obtained a false Caste Certificate. We cannot lose sight of the fact that when there were no legislations governing the field of issuance of caste certificates, verification, cancellation and criminal prosecution, the Hon’ble Apex Court issued certain directives in the case of Kumari Madhuri Patil (supra). These directives were required to be issued to protect the interest of candidates belonging to the designated caste, tribe or class for whom the benefit is reserved. The authorities were required to act to protect rule of law and ensure that the benefit reserved for a designated caste, tribe or class is availed by persons belonging to those caste, tribe or class alone. The moment an illegitimate claim is made, the concerned authorities are bound to initiate action. However, the State of Karnataka had already enacted the Karnataka SC/ST and other BC (Reservation of Appointments, Etc.) Act, 1990 and Rules 1992, governing the field.
21. What is disturbing is that inspite of the statute having been enacted, in the State of Karnataka, successive Governments have issued various circulars and Government orders, interfering or trying to usurp powers reserved only to the Parliament. On November 29, 1977 one such circular was issued empowering concerned officers to issue caste certificates to members of equivalent name in vogue as set out in the Annexure to the circular. In that circular, item No.5 in the Annexure sets out that ‘Kote-Kshatriya, Kotegara, Koteyava, Kotegar’ are the equivalents of ‘Kotegar’ or ‘Metri’ residing in Canara District which are declared as Scheduled Caste under the Presidential order. Thereafter, the said circular was withdrawn on April 20, 1978. In the meanwhile, several persons obtained caste certificates and consequently secured jobs. A Co-ordinate Bench of this Court had held that the Central Government should consider the claim of persons belonging to Kotegara, Koteyava, Rama Kshatirya and Sarvegara as synonyms for conferring the benefit. Thereafter, when the matter came up before the Division Bench, by order dated 14.09.1995, the Division Bench held that the State Government had no authority to issue such circulars. Since it was pleaded that serious consequences would befall persons who had secured employment on the basis of such caste certificates, the Division Bench directed the State Government not to take action for a period of one year. In the meanwhile, the State Government was directed to take up the matter with the Central Government and request the Parliament to pass appropriate legislation so as to include the names of those sub-castes or sub-tribes which according to the State Government are synonymous with the caste or tribes included in the list notified by the Presidential Order.
22. In spite of the fact that the State Government could not persuade the Parliament to include the names of those sub-castes or sub-tribes, two more Government orders were issued on 11.03.2002 and 29.03.2003. It is high time that the political class/lawmakers understand that the State Governments do not have the power to tinker with the Presidential Order. The State Governments, State Legislature and the Central Government are not vested with the power to tinker with the list of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. It is Parliament alone which is empowered by law to include or exclude any caste, race or tribe or part of or group within any caste, race or tribe, from the list of Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe. Whatever be the intention behind such circulars or Government orders, it is advisable to learn from past experiences, the fact that more damage is caused than any benefit really flowing from such executive orders.
23. Before parting, it would be necessary to observe that had the respondent-authorities, including the Directorate of Civil Rights Enforcement, taken prompt action, several such persons who had obtained employment on the basis of false caste claims could have been removed from service. The continuance of all such persons who have secured employment on the basis of false caste claims is akin to ‘allowing a thief to retain stolen property’ – in the words of Their Lordships in Chairman and Managing Director, FCI (supra). A Division Bench of this Court, in Paduthota Ramachandra (supra) had declared that the Government Orders issued by the State Government cannot vest a right contrary to Articles 341 and 342 of the Constitution of India. The observations of the Division Bench in Paduthota Ramachandra came in the year 1995 and a grace period of one year was given, protecting the interest of persons like the petitioners, to enable the State Government to impress upon the Central Government and the Parliament to include such sub-castes which were synonymous with the communities that were already included in the Presidential list. The grace period of one year having elapsed in the year 1996, the respondents were duty bound to initiate action and remove all such persons who had obtained employment on the basis of false caste claims, from service. The delayed action on the part of the Directorate of Civil Rights Enforcement, has benefited many such persons including the petitioners herein, many of whom have already attained the age of superannuation. Repeating the words of Their Lordships, ‘if we desire to build a nation on the touchstone of ethics and character and if our determined goal is to build a nation where only the Rule of Law prevails’, then we cannot accept or permit the petitioners and all such persons to continue in the office even for a minute.
24. Consequently, the show-cause notices issued by the respondent-Banks cannot be interfered with. The respondent authorities are directed to proceed further. In respect of petitioners who have attained the age of superannuation and have since retired, action initiated by the respondents for dismissal from service do not survive for consideration. This is in tune with the observations/directions of the Hon’ble Apex Court at paragraph No.58 (individual case No.1 pertaining to Jagdish Balaram Bahira in Chairman and Managing Director, FCI (supra). In all other matters, where the petitioners were dismissed from service, the action of the respondent authorities and orders of dismissal are upheld.
The petitions are accordingly dismissed.
In view of the dismissal of these petitions, all pending interlocutory applications do not survive for consideration and accordingly, stand disposed of.
No order as to costs.
JT/DL SD/- JUDGE