Holding

A person who secures a public appointment on the basis of a false caste certificate cannot retain the benefit of that appointment, and an undertaking not to claim reservation benefits does not justify reinstatement.

Summary

The respondent, Suresh Ramkrishna Burde, claimed to belong to the Halba Scheduled Tribe and produced a caste certificate to obtain a clerk position at BHEL, a post reserved for Scheduled Tribes. After complaints, the employer referred the matter to the District Collector and a Scrutiny Committee, which after thorough investigation declared the certificate false and identified the respondent as belonging to the Koshti caste. The respondent challenged the committee's order in multiple writ petitions, eventually withdrew two and was directed to approach his employer, whose representation was rejected and his services terminated. The High Court, relying on State of Maharashtra v. Milind, reinstated him on the condition that he would not claim any future reservation benefits. The Supreme Court held that a false caste certificate vitiates the appointment, and an undertaking not to claim benefits does not merit reinstatement; therefore, the termination was lawful and the High Court's order was set aside.

Issues considered

Whether a public appointment obtained on the basis of a false caste certificate can be protected by an undertaking not to claim reservation benefits.
Whether the termination of service of an employee who secured a reserved post through a fraudulent caste certificate is lawful.
Whether the High Court erred in directing reinstatement of the employee despite the Scrutiny Committee's final finding of falsity.

Legislation cited

Constitution of Indias. Article 311, s. Article 342
Constitution (Scheduled Tribes) Order, 1950

Subjects

reservationscheduled tribefalse caste certificatetermination of servicereinstatementpublic appointmentsscrutiny committeeArticle 311Article 342professional degree exceptionequitable relief

Judgment

A AGM/HUMAN RESOURCE, BHEL LTD.
\'.

SURESH RAMKRISHNA BURDE

MAY IO, 2007

B [G.P. MA THUR AND R.V. RA VEENDRAN. JJ.]

Service law:

Public appointments-Reservation in posts-Scheduled Tribe-False
C caste certificate-Submission of-Effect-Employee, claiming himself to be
belonging to "Halba" Scheduled Tribe. submitted a certificate and got an
appointment with the employer as a Clerk on a post which was reserved for
a Scheduled Tribe candidate-After receiving complaints about the caste
certificate produced by the employee. the employer referred the matter for
D verification to the District Collector and al~o to the Scrunity Committee-

-
The Scrunity Committee found that the caste certificare produced by the
employee was false and held that the employee belonged to the "Koshti''
caste and not to the "Ha/ba" Scheduled Tribe-The emplover, accordingly, ·~
terminated the services of the employee-· However, the High Court accepted
the employee's undertaking that in fi1ture neither he nor his family members
E would take any advantage or claim any benefit of his being a member of the
'Halba' Scheduled Tribe and directed the employer to reinstate him in
service-Correctness of-Held: Where a person secures an appointment on
the basis of a false caste certificate, he .:annot be allowed to retain the
benefit of the wrong committed by !um and his services are liable to be
F terminated-Hence, his sen·ices were rightly tern:inated and High Court was
in error in directing his reinstatement-High Court's judgment set aside.
r
The respondent-employee, claiming himself to be belonging to "Halba"
Scheduled Tribe, submitted a certificate to that effect and got an appointment
with the appellant-employer as a Clerk on a post which was reserved for a
G person belonging to the Scheduled Tribe. The respondent, in due course of
time, was promoted to the post of Assistant Grade I.

After receiving complaints about the caste certificate produced by the
respondent, the appellant referred the matter for verification to the District
Collector and also to the Scrunity Committee. The Scrunity Committee, after
388
AGM/HUMAN RESOURCE, BHEL LTD"· SURESH RAMKRISHNA BURDE 389
- ~· a thorough verification, passed an order that the respondent did not belong to A
. the Scheduled Tribe and the caste certificate submitted by him was false and
held that the caste of the respondent was 'Koshti' and that he did not belong
to 'Halba' Scheduled Tribe.

The aforesaid order was challenged by the respondent by filing a writ
petition. However, at the time of the hearing of the writ petition, the respondent B
sought leave of the Court to withdraw the writ petition with liberty to approach
the employer by making a representation. The writ petition was accordingly
dismissed as withdrawn. Thus the order passed by the Scrunity Committee,
by which it was held that the respondent belonged to 'Kohsti' caste and he
was not a member of the 'Halba' Scheduled Tribe, attained finality. C
Thereafter, the respondent made a representation to the appellant-
employer that his services might be protected. However, the appellant, after
considering the said representation, terminated the services of the respondent.

But, the High Court, relying on the decision in Milind's case, and, after D
accepting the respondent's undertaking that in future neither he nor his
family members would take any advantage or claim any benefit of his being a
member of the 'Halba' Sheduled Tribe, disposed of the writ petition with a
direction that the respondent shall be reinstated in service. Hence the appeal.

Allowing the appeal, the Court E
HELD: 1. The High Court had granted relief to the respondent and has
directed his reinstatement only on the basis Milind's case. The said judgment
does not lay down any such principle of law that where a person secures an
appointment by producing a false caste certificate, his services can be protected
and an order of reinstatement can be passed if he gives an Undertaking that F
in future he and his family members shall not take any advantage of being a
- -r member of a caste which is in a reserved category. [Para 71 (394-E-FJ

State of Maharashtra v. Mi/ind, (2001) l SCC, referred to.

2. After interpreting the relevant constitutional or statutory provisions G
and laying down the law, it is always open to this Court to mould the relief
which may appear to be just and proper to the facts and circumstances of the
case. [Para SJ (395-E-FJ

3. The principle, which seems to have been followed by this Court, is
H
390 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2007] 6 S.C.R.

A that, where a person secures an appointment on the basis of a false caste
certificate, he cannot be allowed to retain the benefit of the wrong committed
by him and his services are liable to be terminated. However, where a person
has got admission in a professional course like Engineering or MBBS and
has successfully completed the course after studying for the prescribed period
B and has passed the examination, his case may, on special facts, be considered
on a different footing. Normally, huge amount of public money is spent in
imparting education in a professional college and the student also acquires
the necessary skill in the subjects which he has studied. The skill acquired
by him can be gainfully utilized by the society. In such cases, the professional
degree obtained by the student may be protected though he may have got
C admission by producing a false caste certificate. Here again no hard and fast
rule can be laid down. If the falsehood of the caste certificate submitted by the
student is detected within a short period of his getting admission in the
professional course, bis admission would be liable to be cancelled. However,
where he has completed the course and has passed all the examinations and
acquired the degree, his case may be treated on a different footing. In such
D cases, only a limited relief of protection of his professional degree may be
granted. [Para 11) (397-G-H; 398-A-C)

State of Maharashtra v. Mi/ind, (2001) 1 SCC 4; R. Vishwanatha Pillai
v. State of Kera/a, (2002) 2 SCC 105 and Bank of India v. Avinash D.
E Mandivikar, (2005) 7 sec 690, referred to.

4. In the case in hand, the respondent got an appointment on a post, which
reserved for a member of the Scheduled Tribe. On receiving complaints the
employer referred the matter to the District Collector and also the Scrunity
Committee. The subsequent period has been spent in making enquiry and in
F litigations as the respondent filed three writ petitions. In view of the principle
liad down by this Court, it is clear that his services were rightly terminated
by the appellant and the High Court was in error in directing his r_
reinstatement. The order passed by the High Court, therefore, has to be set
aside. [Para 12) (398-D)

G CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 2424 of2007.

From the Final Judgment and Order dated 04.08.2004 of the High Court
of Bombay, Nagpur Bench, Nagpur in W.P. No. 3142 of2004.

L.N. Rao, G. Ramakrishna Prasad for the Appellant.
H
AGM/HUMAN RESOURCE, BHELLID. v. SURESH RAMKRISHNA BURDE [GP. MATHUR, J.] 39 J

"+" Satyajit A. Desai, Vikram Saluja and Venkateswara Rao for the A
Respondent.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

G.P. MATHUR, J. 1. Leave granted.
B
2. This appeal, by special leave. has been preferred against the judgment
and order dated 4.8.2004 of a Division Bench of Bombay High Court (Nagpur
Bench) by which the writ petition filed by the respondent Suresh Ramkrishna
::: -{ Burde was disposed of with a direction to reinstate him in service and further
that in future he shall not take any benefit as belonging to reserved category
of Scheduled Tribe. C
3. The respondent herein, Suresh Ramkrishna Burde, claiming himself to
be belonging to Halba Scheduled Tribe and after submitting a certificate to
the said effect, got an appointment in the Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd.,
Hyderabad, as Clerk on 31.5.1982 on a post which was reserved for a person D
belon~ing to Scheduled Tribe. He was promoted as Assistate Grade II on
27.6.1987 and then as Assistant Grade I on 25.6.1994. The Scheduled Tribes
Employees Association (Regd. No. 290 BHEL), Hyderabad, made a complaint
that the respondent and several others had produced false caste certificates
and had thereby got appointment on vacancies which were reserved for
members of Scheduled Tribes. The caste certificate produced by the E
respondent was referred for verification to District Collector, Nagpur, on
30.3.1991 and also to the Chairman, Scheduled Tribe Caste Certificate Scrutiny
Committee (for short 'the Scrutiny Committee'). The Scrutiny Committee vide
order 30.8.1995 held that the caste certificate produced by the respondent was
false and the same was invalidated. The respondent challenged the said order
by filing writ petition No. 3229 of 1995 before the Nagpur Bench of Bombay F
High Court, which was allowed and the matter was remanded back to the
Scrutiny Committee for a fresh consideration in accordance with law. The
Scrutiny Committee again examined the matter in accordance with the direction
of the High Court and also got an enquiry conducted through its Police
Vigilance Cell. The enquiry committee took into consideration the primary G
school record of the respondent and also extracts of the admission register
of the school where the respondent's real paternal cousin had his primary
education in the year 1945 onwards. The Scrutiny Committee vide its report
dated 29.8.2001 found that the respondent belonged to 'Koshti' caste and he
did not belong to Halba Scheduled Tribe. This order was again challenged·
H
392 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2007) 6 S. C.R.

A by the respondent by filing writ petition No. 3628 of 200 I before the Nagpur -f' -
Bench of Bombay High Court wherein an interim stay was granted in favour
of the respondent on 1.11.200 I. The writ petition was finally disposed of on
17 .2.2004 and the relevant portion of the order is being reproduced below:

''Learned counsel for the petitioner seeks permission to withdraw
B the present Writ Petition with a liberty to approach the employer of
the petitioner by making a representation in view of the observations
of the Apex Court in Mi/ind Katware 's case reported in 200 I (I)
Mh.L.J. as well as in view of the Govt. Resolutions dated 15th June,
1995 and 15th March, 2000. and further prays that a direction be given
to the respondent no. 4 tmployer of the petitioner, to decide the
c representation of the petitioner on its own merits within the stipulated
period.

Permission is granted. Writ Petition is dismissed as withdrawn.

Respondent No. 4 is d .rected to decide the representation of the
D petitioner according to the law within a period of six weeks from the
date of the receipt of sue 1 representation."

Thereafter, the respondent made a representation dated 12.3 .2004 to the
appellant herein (employer) where in he prayed that in view of decision of the
Supreme Court in State of Mahar ishtra v. Mi/ind and ors., [2001] I SCC 4,
E his services may be protected. This representation was considered by the
appellant and was rejected. The ;ervices of the respondent were terminated
vide order dated 16.7.2004. Feelir g aggrieved by the said order the respondent
then filed writ petition No. 3142 cf 20,04 before the Nagpur Bench of Bombay
High Court, which, after acceptir1g his undertaking that in future he will not
F take any advantage of being a member of Scheduled Tribe, was disposed of
with a direction that he shall be reinstated in service. The order passed by
the High Court is a brief one and relevant part thereof is reproduced below:- T

"It may be noted here that the judgment of the Supreme Court in
State of Maharashtra v. Mi/ind Katware, (Mh L.J. 2001 (I) page-1)
G is not only the judgment pertaining to that case but it is also a settled
law. In fact, the Honourable Supreme Court has accepted the same
to be the settled law in various judgments rendered thereafter.

In accordance with the said judgment of Milind Katware the ""'f"
petitioner has already filed an undertaking that he will not take any
H
AGMIHUMAN RESOURCE, BHEL LID. v. SURESH RAMKRISHNA BURDE [G.P. MATHUR. J.) 393

benefit of Halba Scheduled Tribe in future. A
The learned counsel for the petitioner, on behalf of the petitioner,
undertakes that, neither the petitioner nor his family members will ever
claim any benefit as belonging to Halba Scheduled Tribe. The said
undertaking is accepted. The learned counsel for the petitioner also
states that the petitioner will abide by the order of Scrutiny Committee, B
referred in the order dated 16th July, 2004, especially when the

- I

--{
undertaking is accepted.

Under the circumstances, we direct the respondent to reinstate
the petitioner, as his services were terminated only on the limited
ground. We make it clear that the respondent shall not terminate
services of the petitioner only on the ground that he does not belong
C

to Halba (Scheduled Tribe). The respondent shall treat the petitioner
to be belonging to open category.

The writ petition stands disposed of in the above terms."
D
4. Shri L.N. Rao, learned senior counsel for the appellant, has submitted
that the respondent had secured appointment by producing a false caste
certificate which showed him to be belonging to Halba Scheduled Tribe when
in fact he was not a member of Scheduled Tribe at all and thus he secured
appointment on a post which was reserved for a person belonging to the said
caste. Learned counsel has submitted that fraud vitiates most solemn E
transaction and as the respondent had got appointment by fraudulent means,
his services were rightly terminated and the High Court has erred in directing
his reinstatement after relying upon the decision in the case of Milind though
no such principle had been laid down in the said case.
F
5. Learned counsel for the respondent has supported the judgment of
the High Court and has submitted that the respondent had given an
undertaking that neither he nor his family members will ever take any benefit
as belonging to Halba Scheduled Tribe and in view of the said undertaking
the High Court was perfectly right in protecting his services and directing his
reinstatement. Learned counsel has also submitted that the judgment of the. G
High Court is in accordance with the Constitution Bench decision of this
Court in State of Maharastra v. Ali/ind, (supra) and, therefore, there is no
ground on which this Court may interfere with the order passed by the High
Court.
H
394 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 6 S.C.R.

A 6. There is no dispute on facts. After receiving complaints about the
caste certificate produced by the respondent the appellant referred the matter --.·
for verification to the District Collector, Nagpur on 30.3 .1991 and also to the
Scrutiny Committee. The Scrutiny Committee, after thorough verification,
passed order on 30.8.1995 that the respondent did not belong to the Scheduled
Tribe and the caste certificate submitted by him was false. This order was
B challenged by the respondent and the High Court in writ petition No. 3229
of 1995 remanded the matter back to the Scrutiny Committee for .fresh
consideration. The Scrutiny Committee again conducted the enquiry through ""

C
its Police Vigilance Cell associated with the research officer and after thorough
examination of the entire material again passed an order on 29.8.2001 that the
caste of the respondent was 'Koshti' and he did not belong to Scheduled
)
)- .
Tribe. This order was again challenged by the respondent by filing writ
petition No. 3628 of 200 I. However, at the time of hearing of the writ petition
the petitioner sought leave of the court to withdraw the writ petition with
liberty to approach the employer by making a representation. The writ
petition was accordingly dismissed as withdrawn on 17 .2.2004. The effect of
D the order passed by the High Court is that the order dated 29.8.2001 of the
Scrutiny Committee, by which it was held that the respondent belonged to
'Koshti' caste and he is not a member of Scheduled Tribe, attained finality.
Therefore, there is no escape from the conclusion that the respondent secured
the appointment on a post which was reserved for Scheduled Tribe by
E producing a false caste certificate.

7. The High Court has granted relief to the respondent and has directed
his reinstatement only on the basis of the Constitution Bench decision of this
Court in State of Maharashtra v. Mi/ind, [200 I] l SCC 4. In our opinion the
said judgment does not lay down any such principle of law that where a
F person secures an appointment by producing a false caste certificate, his
services can be protected and an order of reinstatement can be passed if he
gives an undertaking that in future he and his family members shall not take
any advantage of being member of a caste which is in reserved category. The
.-
T

questions which required for consideration by the Constitution Bench, are
G noted in the very first paragraph of the judgment and they are being reproduced
below:-

"I) Whether at all, it is permissible to hold enquiry and let in evidence
to decide or declare that any tribe or tribal community or part of
or group within any tribe or tribal community is included in the
general name even though it is not specifically mentioned in the
H
AGMAfUMAN RESOURCE. BHEL LID.,.. SURESH RAMKRISHNA BURDE [G.P. MATHUR, J.] 395

"l-- concerned Entry in the Constitution (Scheduled Tribes) Order. A
1950? 2)
2) Whether 'Halba Koshti' caste is a sub-tribe within the meaning
of Entry 19 (Halba/Halbi) of the said Scheduled Tribes Order
relating to State of Maharashtra, even though it is not specifically
mentioned as such?" B
After thorough discussion of the matter the conclusions of the Bench are
recorded in paragraph 36 of the report. It was held that it is not at all
.... I
·~
permissible to hold any enquiry or let in any evidence to decide or declare
that any tribe or tribal community or part of or group within any tribe or tribal
community is included in the general name even though it is not specifically C
mentioned in the concerned Entry in the Constitution (Scheduled Tribes)
Order, 1950. It was further held that the notification issued under clause (I)
of Article 342, specifying Scheduled Tribes, can be amended only by law to
be made by Parliament and it is not open to the State Governments or courts
or any other authority to modify, amend or alter the list of Scheduled Tribes D
specified in the notification issued under clause (I) of Article 342 and the
Constitution (Scheduled Tribes) Order 1950. The law declared by the
Constitution Bench does not at all lay down that where a person secures an
appointment by producing a false caste certificate, his services can be protected
on his giving an undertaking that in future he will not take any advantage
of being a member of the reserved category. E
8. After interpreting the relevant constitutional or statutory provisions
and laying down the law, it is always open to a court to mould the relief which
may appear to be just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.
Some times equitable considerations also come into play while granting a
relief. Milind had got admission in a medical course in the year 1985-86 by F
producing a caste certificate that he belonged to Halba Caste, which was later
on invalidated by the Scrutiny Committee. That order was challenged by him
by filing a writ petition which was allowed by the High Court. The appeal
filed by the State of Maharashtra was allowed by the Constitution Bench of
this Court on 28.11.2000, i.e., almost 15 years after he had got admission in G
the course. By that time Milind had already completed his MBBS course and
was practising as a doctor. This Court took notice of the fact that a huge
amount of public money is spent on every student studying in the medical
course and a qualified doctor on whom public money had been spent does
service to the society. The Court, therefore, observed "in these circumstances,
this judgment shall no!' affect the degree obtained by him and his practicing H
396 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 6 S.C.R.

A as a doctor". However, it was made clear that he cannot take any advantage ~
· as being a member of Scheduled Tribe for any other purpose.

9. An identical controversy was again examined in R. Vishwanatha
Pillai v. State of Kera/a, [2004] 2 SCC 105, which is a decision rendered by
a Bench of three learned Judges. The employee in the aforesaid case had got
B an appointment in the year 1973 against a post reserved for Scheduled Caste.
On complaint, the matter was enquired into and the Scrutiny Committee vide
its order dated 18.11.1995 held that he did not belong to Scheduled Caste and
the challenge raised to the said order was rejected by the High Court and the
special leave petition filed against the said order was also dismissed by this
C Court. He then filed a petition before the Administrative Tribunal praying for
a direction not to terminate his services which was allowed, but the order was
reversed by the High Court in a writ petition. The employee then filed an
appeal in this Court. After a detailed consideration of the matter this Court
dismissed the appeal and para 15 of the report, which is relevant for the
decision of the present case, is reproduced below: -
D
"15. This apart, the appellant obtained the appointment in the
service on the basis that he belonged to a Scheduled Caste community.
When it was found by the Scrutiny Committee that he did not belong
to the Scheduled Caste community, then the very basis of his
appointment was taken away. His appointment was no appointment in
E the eyes of law. He cannot claim a right to the post as he had usurped
the post meant for a reserved candidate by playing a fraud and
producing a false caste certificate. Unless the appellant can lay a claim
to the post on the basis of his appointment he cannot claim the
constitutional guarantee given under the Article 311 of the Constitution.
F As he had obtained the appointment on the basis of a false caste
certificate he cannot be considered to be a person who holds a post
within the meaning of Article 311 of the Constitution oflndia, Finding
recorded by the Scrutiny Committee that the appellant got the
appointment on the basis of false caste certificate has become final.
The position, therefore, is that the appellant has usurped the post
G which should have gone to a member of the Scheduled Caste. In view
of the finding recorded by the Scrutiny Committee and upheld upto
this Court he has disqualified himself to hold the post. Appointment
was void from its inception .............................. "

10. In Bank of India v. Avinash D. Mandivikar, [2005] 7 SCC 690, the
H employee had got an appointment on 15.10.1976 on a post which was reserved
AGM/HUMAN RESOURCE. BHEL LTD.,.. SURESH RAMKRISHNA BURDE [G.P MATiiUR.l] 397

·- ...... for a member of Scheduled Tribe. The Scrutiny Committee invalidated the A
caste certificate on 18.7.1987 which was challenged by the employee. After
several rounds of litigation his services were terminated on 28.2.2002. After
referring to the decision in the case of Milind and some other decisions, this
Court allowed the appeal of the employer affirming the order of termination
of service of the employee. Paragraph 6 of the report where the principle was
laid down reads as under: - B

"6. Respondent No. I-employee obtained appointment in the service

- .
I
.(
on the basis that he belonged to Scheduled Tribe. When the clear
finding of the Scrutiny Committee is that he did not belong to
Scheduled Tribe, the very foundation of his appointment collapses
and his appointment is no appointment in the eyes of law. There is
c
absolutely no justification for his claim in respect of post he usurped,
as the same was meant for reserved candidate."

10. In R. Vishwanatha Pillai v. State ofKera/a, (2004] 2 SCC 105, which
we have referred to earlier, the case of the employee's son, who got admission D
in an engineering college against a seat reserved for Scheduled Caste, was
also considered. The admission in the engineering college was obtained in
- ""' ~
1992 and he completed the course in 1996 though under the interim order of
the High Court. The appeal was decided by this Court on 7.1.2004. Placing
reliance upon paragraph 38 of the judgment in the case of Mi/ind (supra), this
Court observed that no purpose would be served in withholding the declaration E
of the result on the basis of examination already taken by the student or
depriving him of the degree in case he passes the examination. It was
accordingly directed that the student's result be declared and he be allowed
to take his degree with the condition that he will not be treated as Scheduled
Caste candidate in future either in obtaining service or for any other benefits F
flowing from the caste certificate obtained by him and he shall be treated to
y be a person belonging to general category.

11. The principle, which seems to have been followed by this Court is,
that, where a person secures an appointment on the basis of a false caste
certificate, he cannot be allowed to retain the benefit of the wrong committed G
by him and his services are liable to be terminated. However, where a person
has got admission in a professional course like engineering or MBBS and has
successfully completed the course after studying for the prescribed period
..,.. and has passed the examiiiation, his case may, on special facts, be considered
on a different footing. Normally, huge amount of public money is spent in
H
398 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007) 6 S.C.R.

A imparting education in a professional college and the student also acquires -~
the necessary skill in the subjects which he has studied. The skill acquired
by him can be gainfully utilized by the society. In such cases the professional
degree obtained by the student may be protected though he may have got
admission by producing a false caste certificate. Here again no hard and fast
B rule can be laid down. If the falsehood of the caste certificate submitted by
the student is detected within a short period of his getting admission in the
professional course, his admission would be liable to be cancelled. However,
where he has completed the course and has passed all the examinations and
acquired the degree, his case may be treated on a different footing. In such
;
cases only a limited relief of protection of his professional degree may be >- -
C granted.

I2. In the case in hand the respondent got appointment on 31.5.1982 on
a post, which was reserved for a member of Scheduled Tribe. On receiving
complaints the employer referred the matter to the District Collector, Nagpur
and also to Scrutiny Committee in March, 1991. The subsequent period has
D been spent in making enquiry and in litigation as the respondent filed three
writ petitions. In view of the principle laid down by this Court we are clearly
of the opinion that his services were rightly terminated by the appellant and
the High Court was in error in directing his reinstatement. The order passed -
by the High Court, therefore, has to be set aside.
E 13. Before parting with the case we would like to observe that the order
invalidating the caste certificate had been passed by the Scrutiny Committee
at Nagpur and, therefore, the earlier two writ petitions filed by the respondent
were maintainable before the Nagpur Bench of Bombay High Court. However,
in the third and final writ petition the order under challenge was the order of
p termination of service which was passed by the appellant on 16.7.2004 at
Hyderabad as the respondent was working with the Bharat Heavy Electrical
Ltd.'s Heavy Power Equipment Plant, Hyderabad. Therefore, the Nagpur
Bench of Bombay High Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the writ petition
wherein challenge was raised to the said order. However, in order to cut short
the litigation and settle the controversy we have decided the case on merits.
G
14. Learned counsel for the respondent also sought to take some benefit
of a certain Government Order dated 15.6.1995 issued by the State of
Maharashtra wherein some reservation in service is provided to members of
special backward class. In our opinion the respondent can get no benefit
H from the same as he is not an employee of Government of Maharahstra but
AGM/HUMAN RESOURCE, BHELLTD."· SURESH RAMKRISHNA BURDE [G.P. MATHUR,J.] 399

A
is an employee of a public sector undertaking of Central Government and he
secured the appointment long before on 31.5.1982.

15. For the reasons discussed above the appeal is allowed. The
judgment and order dated 4.8.2004 of the Bombay High Court (Nagpur Bench),
which is under challenge in the present appeal, is set aside. The writ petition B
filed by the respondent is dismissed.

... -~
v.s.s.
16. No order as to costs .

Appeal allowed.