Holding

The protection afforded in State of Maharashtra v. Milind does not extend to the respondent, and an undertaking cannot prevent termination of service obtained on a fraudulent Scheduled Tribe claim.

Summary

The respondent, Sushil, was appointed by the Life Insurance Corporation of India on the basis of a claim that he belonged to the Scheduled Tribe Halba. The Committee for Scrutiny and Verification of Tribe Claims found his claim to be fraudulent and ordered invalidation. The Bombay High Court, relying on an undertaking by the respondent not to claim any benefit and on the precedent of State of Maharashtra v. Milind, held that his services should not be terminated. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, holding that the Milind case was decided on a unique factual matrix involving a doctor and cannot be extended to this employee, and that an undertaking is not the ratio of that judgment. Consequently, the matter was remitted to the High Court for fresh consideration on its merits. The appeal was allowed without costs.

Issues considered

Whether an employee's undertaking not to claim any benefit can bar termination of service when the appointment was based on a fraudulent Scheduled Tribe certificate.
Whether the ratio of State of Maharashtra v. Milind applies to the present case.
Whether the High Court erred in relying solely on the Milind precedent without examining the merits of the fraudulent claim.

Subjects

reservationappointmentscheduled tribefraudulent certificateundertakingservice terminationMilind casescrutiny committeepublic service

Judgment

1

:
A L.LC. OF INDIA
v.
SUSHIL

JANUARY 23, 2006

B [ARIJIT PASAYAT AND S.H. KAPADIA, JJ.]

r
Service law:

Reservation in Appointment-Appointment on post reservedfor Scheduled
C Tribe-Social Status Certificate found to have been obtained wrongly and
fraudulentl~Employee giving an undertaking not to claim any benefit either
in service or anywhere else-High Court directing that services of employee
be not terminated-Held, filing of undertaking not to be treated as ratio of
judgment in Milind's case-Matter remitted to High Court for decision afresh
D on merits-Social Status Certificate. I

I Respondent was appointed by the appellant Corporation on the basis
of his claim of being a Scheduled Tribe belonging to Halba caste. The
Committee for scrutiny and verification of Tribe Claims found that the
respondent wrongly and fraudulently claimed the benefit. The High Court,
E in view of an undertaking given on behalf of the respondent that he would
not claim any benefit either in his service or anywhere else, and referring
to the judgment in State of Maharashtra v. Mi/ind and Ors.,• held that
services of the respondent be not terminated notwithstanding the
invalidation order passed by the Scrutiny Committee. Aggrieved, the Life ·
F Insurance Corporation filed the present appeal.

Allowing the appeal, the Court

HELD. I.I. The protection under Miland's case cannot be extended
to the respondent as the protection was given under the peculiar factual
background of that case, and the Court felt it not desirable to deprive the
G society of a doctor's service. The factor which weighed with the Court in
that case cannot be applied to the respondent herein. In Miland's case filing .•
of the undertaking was not to be treated as ratio of the judgment.
[560-D-E-GJ

H 558

.·
.L

L.I.C. OF INDIA v. SUSHIL [PASAYAT. J.J
'
*State of Maharashtra v. Mi/ind and Or.s., 12001 I I SCC 4, explained A
and held not applicable•

. Bank of India and Anr. v. Avinash D. Maridivikar ;,nd Ors., 120051 7
.sec 690, relied on.
1.2. As the High Court has not considered the matter in its proper B
perspective, except relying on Milind's case, it would be appropriate to
• remit the matter to the High Court for a fresh consideration on merits or
·the case: 156i-B-q

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No~ 7j9 of2006.
. . . c
From the Judgment and Order dated 16.7.2004 of the Bombay High
.
Court in Writ Petition No. 3008 of 2004..

G.E. Vahanavati, SG A.V. Rangam, A. Ranganadhan and Buddy A.
Ranganathan for the Appellant;
\
D
I U.U. Lalit and Mrs. Sarla Chandra for _the Respondent.

. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

.. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J .. Leave granted.
E
. Challenge in this appeal is to the order passed by a Division Bench of
the Bombay High Court, Nagpur Bench, Nagp;.r.The respondent had secured
employment in the Life Insurance Corporation of India {hereinafter referred
to as the 'LIC') the appellant in this appeal on the basis that he.belongs to
Scheduled_ Tribe. Undisputedly, his caste was recorded as Halba. Committee
· for Scrutiny and Verification of Tribe Claims, Amaravati vide its order dated F
30.4.2004 held that respondent's claim of belo~ging to Scheduled Tribe was
wrong. unfounded and was a fraudulent claim. The order was questioned by
respondent before the High cOurt by filing a writ petition, Before the High
Court, learned counsel for the writ petitioner submitted that the writ petitioner ·
was willing to file an undertaking to the effect that he ·will not claim any G
~ , benefit ·on the basisofhis case as Halb~ eith~i i~· his. service or anywhere else
~ at any time for himself as well as for his legal heirs. With reference to a
judgment of this Court in State of Maharashtra v. Mi/ind and Ors. (2001] I
SCC_:I. the High Court held that in view of the undertaking the writ petitioner's
services were not to be terminated notwithstanding invalidation order passed
by the Scrutiny Committee. H

.-·
560 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2006] I S.C.R.

A Learned counsel for the LIC submitted that the approach of the High
Court is clearly erroneous. In Mi/ind's case (supra) this Court never laid
down any principle of law having universal application. The observations in
para 38 of the judgment were limited to the peculiar facts of the case. The
High Court erroneously proceeded on the basis that the decision laid down
B a rule of universal application.

In response, learned counsel for· the respondent submitted that the
respondent had already rendered about 14 years of uninterrupted and
blemishless service and merely because he could not establish his Scheduled
Tribe claim, the benefit already granted should not have been withdrawn. It
C was pointed out that undertaking in the lines noted by the High Court had
already been filed.

This Court in R. Vishwanatha Pillai v. State of Kera/a and Ors., (2004]
2 SCC I 05) and lillykutty v. Scrutiny Committee, SC & ST and Ors., (2005]
8 sec 283 have considered the effect of non-genuine certificates in the case
D of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes' claims.

The protection under the Milind's case (supra) cannot be extended to
the respondent no. I-employee as the protection was given under the peculiar
factual background of that case. The employee concerned was a doctor and
had rendered long years of service. This Court noted that on a doctor public
E money has been spent and, therefore, it will not be desirable to deprive the
society of a doctor's service. Respondent no. I-employee in the present case
is an UC employee and the factor which weighed with this Court cannot be
applied to him.

The above position was elaborated in Bank of India and Anr. v. Avinash
F D. Mandivikar and Ors.. (2005] 7 SCC 690.

It is noted that in spite of six opportunities the respondent No. I did not
appear before the Scrutiny Committee. That being the position the Scrutiny
Committee had no other option than to take a decision in the matter. We also
G find that the Scrutiny Committee referred to documents which were before it
and came to the conclusion about the claim of respondent No. I being not
genuine.

In Milind's case (supra). filing of the undertaking was not to be treated
as the ratio of the judgment. Before us it was urged on behalf of respondent
H No. I that in State of Maharashtra at the relevant time there were resolutions/

-
L.I.C. OF INDIA v. SlJSHIL [PASAY AT. J.I 561

-., Government Orders which made respondent believe that there was no A
fraudulent intention in claiming to be Halba. Mr. Lalit, learned counsel for
respondent submitted that none of these aspects (including various G.Rs.)
have been considered. The High Court in the present case proceeded on the
basis as if mere filing of an undertaking in the line suggested by the writ
petitioner was sufficient to bring the case under the umbrella of decision in B
Milind's case (supra). That is clearly not so.

As the High Court has not considered the matter in its proper perspective,

.
,
except relying on Mi/ind's case (supra) we think it appropriate to remit the
matter to the High Court for a fresh consideration on merits of case on the
grounds, if any, without influenced by any observation in this order. C
The appeal is allowed to the aforesaid exterit without any order as to
costs.

R.P . Appeal allowed.

...

-