This special appeal is directed against a judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 1 June 2012.
In pursuance of an advertisement which was issued by the New Okhla Industrial Development Authority, both the appellants were appointed as Gardeners on 12 August 1997. For the purpose of securing appointments against the reserved posts, the appellants relied upon the caste certificates dated 20 August 1997 issued by the Tehsildar, Balachaur in the State of Punjab. The services of the appellants were terminated on 11 May 2007. The appellants along with six others filed writ proceedings challenging their termination. The appellants stated in paragraph 5 of the petition that they are permanent residents of the State of Punjab and belong to a Scheduled Caste. In support, they relied upon the caste certificates issued to them in the State of Punjab, which refer to the appellants as being Ad-dharmi by caste and of being ordinary residents of the State of Punjab. The appellants contended that the order of termination was passed without complying with the principle of natural justice. A counter affidavit was filed on behalf of the Authority stating that the appointments of the appellants were void and they had inadvertently been selected though they were ordinary residents of the State of Punjab and the caste certificates that were issued in the State of Punjab were not valid in the State of Uttar Pradesh. The learned Single Judge has dismissed the petition by the impugned order.
The law on the subject is now well settled. In Action Committee on Issue of Caste Certificate to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes in State of Maharashtra Vs. Union of India1, the Supreme Court observed as follows:-
"Coincidently it may be that a caste or tribe bearing the same nomenclature is specified in two States but the considerations on the basis of which they have been specified may be totally different. So also the degree of disadvantages of various elements, which constitute the point for specification, may also be totally different. Therefore, merely because a given caste is specified in State A as a Scheduled Caste does not necessarily mean that if there be another caste bearing the same nomenclature in another State the person belonging to the former would be entitled to the rights, privileges and benefits admissible to a member of the Scheduled Caste of the latter State "for the purposes of this Constitution."
Consequently, it is now a well settled principle of law that where a person obtains a caste certificate of belonging to a particular caste in the State of his/her origin, that would not entitle the holder of the certificate to the benefit of reservation in another State to which the person migrates. The mere fact that even the nomenclature of the caste is the same in two States namely, the State of origin and the State of migration, would not entitle a person to the benefit of reservation in the State to which he/she migrates. That is because the considerations which weigh in favour of the designation of a particular caste in relation to that State may not necessarily be the same as in another State. The learned Single Judge has followed the settled principle of law as set out in Action Committee Vs. Union of India (supra) and in the decision subsequently rendered in MCD v. Veena and Others2.
It would also be relevant to notice that Section 9 of The Uttar Pradesh Public Services (Reservation For Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes) Act, 1994 deals with caste certificates and it provides that for the purposes of reservation provided under the Act, a caste certificate shall be issued by such authority or officer in such manner and form as the State Government may, by order, provide. The State Government has issued an order dated 29 March 1994 for this purpose. This Government Order provides that the caste certificates shall issued by the District Magistrate/Additional District Magistrate/City Magistrate/Sub-Divisional Magistrate/Tehsildar of the area where the concerned applicant resides or was born. The appellants, however, had obtained employment on the strength of caste certificates issued by the Tehsildar in the State of Punjab. These certificates, therefore, could not have been taken into consideration for providing any reservation under the Act. This apart, "Ad-dharmi" is not even a scheduled caste notified in relation to the State of Uttar Pradesh in the Presidential Order.
The appellants, therefore, were clearly not entitled to claim employment on the basis of the caste certificates issued by the Tehsildar in the State of Punjab. As a result of the employment which had been obtained by the appellants unlawfully, a genuine member of the Scheduled Caste in the State of Uttar Pradesh has been deprived of employment.
In view of the admitted facts, the only conclusion that can be drawn is that the appellants were not entitled to claim the benefit of the caste certificates. It will, therefore, not be appropriate to set aside the order of termination only on the ground that there was a breach of principles of natural justice. For this purpose we may refer to the decision of the Supreme Court in Viveka Nand Sethi Vs. Chairman, J&K Bank Ltd & Ors.3 where it has been observed:-
"The principle of natural justice, it is trite, is no unruly horse. When facts are admitted, an enquiry would be an empty formality. Even the principle of estoppel will apply. [See Dr. Gurjeewan Garewal (Dr.) v. Dr. Sumitra Dash4]. The principles of natural justice are required to be complied with having regard to the fact situation obtaining therein. It cannot be put in a straitjacket formula. It cannot be applied in a vacuum without reference to the relevant facts and circumstances of the case. (See State of Punjab v. Jagir Singh5 and Karnataka SRTC v. S.G. Koturappa6)"
In the circumstances, the dismissal of the petition by the learned Single Judge cannot be faulted. We find no merit in the special appeal, which is, accordingly, dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
The delay in filing the appeal is condoned in the interest of justice since sufficient cause has been shown in the affidavit filed in support of the delay condonation application.
The application stands disposed of.
There shall be no order as to costs.
Order Date :- 12.2.2014 RKK/-
(Dilip Gupta, J.) (Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud, CJ) Chief Justice's Court Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 153 of 2014 Appellant :- Kuldeep Kumar And Roop Chand Respondent :- C.E.O., Noida And 3 Ors. Counsel for Appellant :- Anil Kummar Sharma,Akhtar Ali Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Rahul Sahai Hon'ble Dr. Dhananjaya Yeshwant Chandrachud,Chief Justice Hon'ble Dilip Gupta,J. Dismissed. For orders, see order of date passed on separate sheets. Order Date :- 12.2.2014 RKK/- (Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud, CJ) (Dilip Gupta, J.)