THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, BHILAI STEEL PLANT, BHILAIversusMAHESH KUMAR GONNADE & ORS.

                         [2022] 6 S.C.R. 979                             979


               THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER,                              A
                BHILAI STEEL PLANT, BHILAI
                                  v.
             MAHESH KUMAR GONNADE & ORS.
                   (Civil Appeal No. 4990 of 2021)                       B
                           JULY 11, 2022
  [SANJAY KISHAN KAUL AND HRISHIKESH ROY, JJ.]
       Service Law: Termination – Challenge to, by Management
trainee in PSU-respondent no. 1 who secured employment to a post
                                                                         C
earmarked for the reserved category when he did not belong to the
Halba ST category – Division Bench set aside the termination order
holding that he would be entitled to the benefits of seniority and
back wages – On appeal held: When a person secures appointment
on the basis of a false certificate, he cannot be permitted to retain
the benefit of wrongful appointment – As an OBC person, the              D
respondent no.1 could not have been permitted to continue in a
post meant for the ST category – High Court should not have granted
relief by invoking the principles of natural justice, and by adverting
to the ratio in Milind’s case which was not applicable to the
respondent no.1, and was eventually clarified in Dattatray’s case –
                                                                         E
High Court erred by granting relief to the respondent no.1 – However,
the emoluments paid to him should not be recovered – Furthermore,
respondent no.1 not entitled to any pensionary benefit by virtue of
his wrongful appointment.
      Allowing the appeal, the Court
                                                                         F
      HELD: 1.1 The pronouncement in Dattatray’s case clearly
suggests that the High Court misapplied the ratio in Milind’s case,
since the appointment of the respondent no. 1 as Management
Trainee (Technical), cannot be compared to the education and
appointment of a medical doctor. [Para 12][986-C-D]
                                                                         G
     1.2 The High Court disregarded the Government’s circular
dated 11.01.2016 whereby the previous circular (01.10.2011) was
cancelled with the specific observation that Milind’s judgment
was clarified subsequently in Dattatray’s case, by declaring that

                                                                         H
                                 979
980            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                      [2022] 6 S.C.R.


A     when a person secures appointment on the basis of a false
      certificate, he cannot be permitted to retain the benefit of wrongful
      appointment. In fact, necessary actions were expected to be taken
      against those who secured unmerited appointment on the basis
      of false caste certificate. Pertinently, the respondent no.1 could
      have (but never did) challenge, the circular dated 11.01.2016
B
      which required the Government to cancel such unmerited
      appointment. [Para 14][987-C-E]
             1.3 The respondent no.1 secured employment to a post
      earmarked for the reserved category, and there is a clear finding
      by the Caste Scrutiny Committee that the respondent no.1 does
C     not belong to the Halba ST category. The Halba ST certificate
      (11.09.1987) on the basis of which the respondent No.1 secured
      employment was cancelled by the Committee on 15.07.2015, and
      such finding of the Caste Scrutiny Committee remain
      unchallenged till date. As a consequence, the respondent no. 1 is
D     disentitled to claim any equitable relief by virtue of his long
      service, particularly when he, despite the notice, avoided the
      proceedings of the Caste Scrutiny Committee. Also conspicuously,
      he does not challenge the adverse finding against him. Moreover,
      it is not the claim of the respondent no.1 that he belongs to the
      ST category nor did he ever challenge the clarificatory circular
E     (11.01.2016) which cancels the earlier circular (01.10.2011). In
      such circumstances, an opportunity to the respondent no.1 would
      be futile because he could not have claimed that he belongs to
      the ST category since his Halba caste certificate (issued on
      11.09.1987) stood cancelled by the Committee. Consequently,
F     as an OBC person, the respondent no.1 could not have been
      permitted to continue in a post meant for the ST category. The
      High Court, therefore, should not have granted relief by invoking
      the principles of natural justice, and by adverting to the ratio in
      Milind’s case which was not applicable to the respondent no.1,
      and which eventually was clarified in Dattatray’s case. [Para
G     15][987-E-H; 988-A-B]
            1.4 The High Court erred by granting relief to the
      respondent no.1 who is disentitled to claim any right to continue
      in a post earmarked for the ST category. The ratio in Milind’s
      case was incorrectly applied in the impugned judgment since it is
H
THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, BHILAI STEEL PLANT, BHILAI                981
              v. MAHESH KUMAR GONNADE

not the case of the respondent no.1 that he belongs to the ST          A
category. The High Court instead of granting equitable relief to
the respondent no. 1, should have held that he cannot continue
to usurp the benefits meant for a ST category person.
Consequently, the respondent no. 1 being an OBC cannot be
retained in a ST category post. However, the emoluments paid
                                                                       B
to him should not be recovered. Furthermore, the respondent
no.1 is disentitled to any pensionary benefit by virtue of his
wrongful appointment. [Para 16][988-B-E]
      Union of India v. Dattatray & Ors. (2008) 4 SCC 612
      : [2008] 2 SCR 1096 – relied on.                                 C
      State of Maharashtra v. Milind and Ors. (2001) 1 SCC
      4 : [2000] 5 Suppl. SCR 65; Chairman and Managing
      Director, Food Corporation of India & Ors. v. Jagdish
      Balaram Bahira & Ors. (2017) 8 SCC 670 : [2017] 11
      SCR 271 – referred to.                                           D
                      Case Law Reference
[2000] 5 Suppl. SCR 65        referred to     Para 5, 12, 14, 15, 16
[2008] 2 SCR 1096             relied on       Para 12, 14, 15
                                                                       E
[2017] 11 SCR 271             referred to     Para 8
      CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 4990
of 2021.
      From the Judgment and Order dated 09.01.2017 of the High Court   F
of Chattisgarh, Bilaspur in WPS No.675 of 2016.
      Maninder Singh, Sr. Adv., Sunil Kumar Jain, Advs. for the
Appellant.
      Anupam Lal Das, Sr. Adv., Ashwarya Sinha, Ms. Shubhi Sharma,
Ms. Priyanka Sinha, Sumeer Sodhi, Manoj Kumar Singh, Advs. for the     G
Respondents.




                                                                       H
982            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                           [2022] 6 S.C.R.


A           The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
            HRISHIKESH ROY, J.
             1. Heard Mr. Maninder Singh, the learned Senior Counsel
      appearing on behalf of the appellant. Also heard Mr. Anupam Lal Das,
B     the learned Senior Counsel representing the respondent no. 1. The State
      of Chhattisgarh is represented by Mr. Sumir Sodhi, the learned counsel.
             2. The challenge in this appeal is to the judgment and order dated
      09.01.2017 in the WP No. 675/2016 whereby the Division Bench has
      interfered with the order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal
C     (for short “CAT”) and granted relief to the writ petitioner (respondent
      no. 1) whose termination order dated 24.10.2015 was set aside with the
      declaration that he would be entitled to all the consequential benefits,
      including seniority and back wages.
                               RELEVANT FACTS
D            3. On 11.09.1987, the respondent no.1 obtained a Caste Certificate
      showing him to be “Halba” Scheduled Tribe (hereinafter “ST”) from
      the Deputy Collector, Durg and on the basis of the said certificate, the
      respondent no.1 on 18.09.1995, joined service as a Management Trainee
      (Technical) against a Schedule Tribe quota vacancy at the Bhillai Steel
E     Plant of the Steel Authority of India Limited (SAIL). In 2008, questions
      were raised on the caste status of the respondent no.1, and his entitlement
      to the benefits meant for the Scheduled Tribe category, and accordingly,
      his caste certificate was forwarded to the High-Level Caste Scrutiny
      Committee, Raipur to determine whether he belonged to Halba Scheduled
      Tribe community or “Halba/Koshti” the Other Backward Class
F     (hereinafter “OBC”) community. The Committee, after due inquiry, on
      15.07.2015 submitted a report stating that respondent no.1 belongs to
      Halba/Koshti community, which is categorized as OBC in the State of
      Chhattisgarh, and thus, he does not belong to Halba Scheduled Tribe
      community. Accordingly, the respondent no.1’s Halba ST Certificate
G     dated 11.09.1987 was cancelled with the observation that the respondent
      no.1 failed to produce documents prior to the year 1950 showing him as
      Halba. Following the cancellation of the ST Certificate, the Vigilance
      Department of the State of Chhattisgarh, on 23.07.2015, issued
      communication to the employer i.e., Bhillai Steel Plant for necessary
      action. In consequence thereof, and the adverse finding of the Committee,
H     order for termination of the respondent no.1’s service was issued on
    THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, BHILAI STEEL PLANT, BHILAI                  983
         v. MAHESH KUMAR GONNADE [HRISHIKESH ROY, J.]

24.10.2015. The Bhillai Steel Plant also ordered for forfeiture of all the   A
service benefits of the respondent no.1 such as CPF, Gratuity, Pension,
Leave Encashment etc.
      4. The respondent no.1 moved the Central Administrative Tribunal
(CAT), to challenge the termination but his OA 1115/2015 came to be
dismissed in limine because he had not challenged the adverse finding        B
(15.07.2015) of the High-Level Caste Scrutiny Committee, Raipur.
       5. Thereafter, the respondent no.1 filed a writ petition before the
High Court of Chhattisgarh challenging the CAT’s decision and seeking
protection of his service. The Division Bench of the High Court by placing
reliance on State of Maharashtra Vs. Milind and Ors.1 (hereinafter           C
“Milind”) through the impugned judgment granted relief to the writ
petitioner. In the process, the High Court overlooked that the writ
petitioner opted to abstain from the proceedings of the High-Level Caste
Scrutiny Committee. Moreover, by this time it was made clear that
Halba/Koshti is not a sub-caste of Halba. Therefore, the respondent
no.1 being an OBC (Halba/Koshti) could not have claimed recognition          D
and employment benefits reserved for members of the Halba ST
community under the Milind’s ratio.
         ARGUMENTS BY THE COUNSELS
       6.1 Assailing the impugned judgment, Mr. Maninder Singh, the          E
learned Senior Counsel firstly argues that the High Court erroneously
relied on the ratio in Milind (supra) and also conspicuously missed the
point that the relief in the cited case was restricted to the concerned
litigant and the ratio was not intended to be of universal application.
Placing strong reliance on Union of India vs. Dattatray & Ors. 2
(hereinafter “Dattatray”), the appellant’s counsel then argues that the      F
Milind’s judgment was made applicable only for the doctor litigant in the
larger interest of the society and the ratio thereof, cannot be
indiscriminately applied in cases of persons who undeservingly secure
public appointments to reserved category jobs.
       6.2 It is the submission of the Senior Counsel for the appellant      G
that the judgment in Milind (supra) was clarified by this Court in
Dattatray (supra) that Milind does not propound retention of any person
in service who secured employment in a ST category vacancy, on the
1
    (2001) 1 SCC 4
2
    (2008) 4 SCC 612                                                         H
984            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                           [2022] 6 S.C.R.


A     basis of a false caste certificate. For this reason, the earlier Government
      Circular dated 1.10.2011 (which on account of Milind’s judgment granted
      protection to the pre 28.11.2000 appointees recruited wrongly under the
      ST category), was cancelled by the latter circular dated 11.1.2016 issued
      by the Secretary, GAD, Chhattisgarh with the specific observation that
      the judgment in Milind was clarified by this Court in Dattatray. Mr.
B
      Maninder Singh, therefore, argues that consequential action was rightly
      taken in view of the cancellation of earlier circular (1.10.2011).
              6.3 The High Court according to the appellant, erroneously granted
      relief to the respondent no.1 as he neither challenged the circular dated
      11.1.2016 nor the adverse conclusion of the Caste Scrutiny Committee.
C     Therefore, in view of the undisturbed finding that he does not belong to
      the ST category and the unchallenged Circular (11.1.2016), relief could
      not have been granted by the High Court. Furthermore, the respondent
      no.1 never tried to establish the validity of his caste certificate before
      the High-Power Caste Scrutiny Committee, although, opportunity was
D     afforded to him through a notice, to project his version.
            7.1 Per contra, Mr. Anupam Lal Das, the learned Senior Counsel
      would contend that the respondent no.1 had obtained his caste certificate
      on 11.09.1987 and joined service as far back as on 18.09.1995 and as
      such, his service could not have been terminated without issuing him a
E     show cause notice.
              7.2 Adverting next to the adverse finding as given by the High-
      Power Caste Scrutiny Committee to the effect that the respondent no.1
      does not belong to the Halba ST community, Mr. Das would argue that
      the adverse conclusion was drawn mainly because the respondent no.1
F     failed to produce any pre 1950 document, showing his caste as Halba.
      But since the respondent no.1’s appointment became final prior to
      28.11.2000 i.e., the date on which this Court decided the C.A. No.2294/
      1986 (State of Maharashtra vs. Milind), the appointed person even
      with the adverse finding of the Caste Scrutiny Committee against him, is
      entitled to retain his job. Furthermore, the Central Government vide its
G     circular dated 10.8.2010 had ordered for protection of employment of
      those belonging to the Halba/Koshti community. Thus, according to the
      learned Senior Counsel, the High Court, rightly granted relief to the
      respondent no.1 in his Writ Petition and the same should not be disturbed
      in this appeal.
H
    THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, BHILAI STEEL PLANT, BHILAI                       985
         v. MAHESH KUMAR GONNADE [HRISHIKESH ROY, J.]

       8. The stand of the State of Chhattisgarh (respondent nos.2 and            A
3) as pleaded in their counter affidavit is that respondent no.1 (not being
a ST category person) is disentitled to continue in service, as he secured
employment to a post earmarked for the ST category. Moreover, since
the respondent no.1 does not belong to the reserved category and secured
employment on the basis of a false caste certificate, he was disentitled
                                                                                  B
to any relief in view of the law laid down in Chairman and Managing
Director, Food Corporation of India & Ors. vs. Jagdish Balaram
Bahira & Ors.3 (hereinafter “Jagdish”).
               THE DISCUSSION AND THE DECISION
       9. At the outset, given that the Jagdish (supra) as relied on by           C
respondent nos.2 & 3 was pronounced on 06.07.2017, almost 6 months
after the impugned judgment on 09.01.2017, the same could not have
been considered by the High Court. With this prefatory clarification, the
issue to be answered in this matter is whether the High Court had correctly
relied on the ratio in Milind (supra) in granting relief to the writ petitioner
(respondent no.1), and whether the impugned decision of the High Court            D
is sustainable in view of the clarification of the Milind by the subsequent
judgment in Dattatray (supra).
      10. As can be seen, the High Court granted relief to the respondent
no.1 by referring to the decision in Milind (supra) with the following
words: -                                                                          E

         “15. For the aforesaid, we are of the considered view that the
         impugned judgment rendered by the Central Administrative
         Tribunal, refusing to extend benefit of Milind’s judgment to
         the petitioners deserves to be and is hereby set-aside.
         Consequently, the petitioner’s termination vide order dated              F
         24.10.2015 is also set-aside. The petitioner would be entitled
         to all the consequential benefits on or after 24.10.2015
         including seniority and back wages. However, the petitioner
         shall not be entitled to any interest on the arrears of salary
         nor any further benefit on the basis of certificate which has            G
         been cancelled by the High Power Caste Scrutiny Committee.”
      11. While applying the ratio of Milind as above, the High Court,
however, failed to take note of the following clarification given in Dattatray
(supra), regarding the ratio in Milind: -
3
    (2017) 8 SCC 670                                                              H
986            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                        [2022] 6 S.C.R.


A                  “5. ………But the said decision has no application to
            a case which does not relate to an admission to an educational
            institution, but relates to securing employment by wrongly
            claiming the benefit of reservation meant for Scheduled Tribes.
            When a person secures employment by making a false claim
            regarding caste/tribe, he deprives a legitimate candidate
B
            belonging to Scheduled Caste/Tribe, of employment. In such
            a situation, the proper course is to cancel the employment
            obtained on the basis of the false certificate so that the post
            may be filled up by a candidate who is entitled to the benefit
            of reservation.”
C           12. The pronouncement in Dattatray clearly suggests that the
      High Court misapplied the ratio in Milind, since the appointment of the
      respondent no. 1 as Management Trainee (Technical), cannot be
      compared to the education and appointment of a medical doctor.
            13. It must also be borne in mind that the Division Bench of the
D     Chhattisgarh High Court in the common judgment in Writ Appeal No.531
      of 2016 (State of Chhattisgarh & Ors. vs. Dinesh Kumar Sonkusre)
      had made the following observations: -
            “40. It would be pertinent to mention that the State of
            Chhattisgarh was formed w.e.f. 01.11.2000 and the judgment
E           in Milind (supra) was rendered on 28.11.2000 and the
            protection can only be given to those who were actually
            “Halba-Koshti” or “Koshti” for the State of Madhya Pradesh
            and Chhattisgarh prior to 28.11.2000 and were therefore
            treated as “Halbas”.
F           41. Having held so, we want to clarify that the notification
            dated 11.1.2016 is not bad in law. It will however have to be
            read in the context of the law laid down by the Apex Court in
            various judgements as explained by us above. This
            notification may not apply to those petitioners who have
G           obtained jobs prior to 28.11.2000 provided they have
            obtained Scheduled Tribe certificate “bona fide” and without
            suppression or misrepresentation of any facts. In case, a
            person is not a “Halba Koshti” in relation to State of Madhya
            Pradesh, then that person is not entitled to any protection of
            law. If a person has obtained a false certificate by
H
THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, BHILAI STEEL PLANT, BHILAI                       987
     v. MAHESH KUMAR GONNADE [HRISHIKESH ROY, J.]

      misrepresentation of facts or providing wrong information,              A
      then that the person is also not entitled to any protection. It is
      only those who were actually “Halba Koshti” or “Koshti”
      believed that they were members of “Halba”, a Scheduled
      Tribe and who got jobs prior to 28.11.2000, are entitled to
      such protection. This protection cannot be extended to all
                                                                              B
      and sundry. To give an example if “Halba Koshti” from the
      State of Maharashtra had shifted to State of Madhya Pradesh,
      then he would not be “Halba Koshti” belonging to Madhya
      Pradesh and as such, his certificate would be totally false
      and such a person would not be entitled to any protection.”
       14. As we notice, the High Court disregarded the Government’s          C
circular dated 11.01.2016 whereby the previous circular (01.10.2011)
was cancelled with the specific observation that Milind’s judgment was
clarified subsequently in Dattatray, by declaring that when a person
secures appointment on the basis of a false certificate, he cannot be
permitted to retain the benefit of wrongful appointment. In fact, necessary   D
actions were expected to be taken against those who secured unmerited
appointment on the basis of false caste certificate. Pertinently, the
respondent no.1 could have (but never did) challenge, the circular dated
11.01.2016 which required the Government to cancel such unmerited
appointment.
                                                                              E
        15. As noted earlier, the respondent no.1 secured employment to
a post earmarked for the reserved category, and there is a clear finding
by the Caste Scrutiny Committee that the respondent no.1 does not belong
to the Halba ST category. The Halba ST certificate (11.09.1987) on
the basis of which the respondent No.1 secured employment was
cancelled by the Committee on 15.07.2015, and such finding of the Caste       F
Scrutiny Committee remain unchallenged till date. As a consequence,
the respondent no.1 is disentitled to claim any equitable relief by virtue
of his long service, particularly when he, despite the notice, avoided the
proceedings of the Caste Scrutiny Committee. Also conspicuously, he
does not challenge the adverse finding against him. Moreover, it is not       G
the claim of the Respondent no.1 that he belongs to the ST category nor
did he ever challenge the clarificatory circular (11.01.2016) which cancels
the earlier circular (01.10.2011). In such circumstances, an opportunity
to the respondent no.1 would be futile because he could not have claimed
that he belongs to the ST category since his Halba caste certificate
                                                                              H
988                SUPREME COURT REPORTS                         [2022] 6 S.C.R.


A     (issued on 11.09.1987) stood cancelled by the Committee. Consequently,
      as an OBC person, the respondent no.1 could not have been permitted
      to continue in a post meant for the ST category. The High Court,
      therefore, should not have granted relief by invoking the principles of
      natural justice, and by adverting to the ratio in Milind (supra) which was
      not applicable to the respondent no.1, and which eventually was clarified
B
      in Dattatray (supra).
              16. The above would show that the High Court clearly fell into an
      error by granting relief to the respondent no.1 who is disentitled to claim
      any right to continue in a post earmarked for the ST category. The ratio
      in Milind (supra) was incorrectly applied in the impugned judgment since
C     it is not the case of the respondent no.1 that he belongs to the ST category.
      According to our understanding of the circumstances, the High Court
      instead of granting equitable relief to the Respondent no. 1, should have
      held that he cannot continue to usurp the benefits meant for a ST category
      person. Indeed the Division Bench should have said “the game is up”
D     as was pronounced by Shakespeare in the play Cymbeline when the
      character stood exposed for what he actually was. Consequently we
      are of the opinion that the Respondent no. 1 being an OBC cannot be
      retained in a ST category post. However the emoluments paid to him
      should not be recovered. It is further held that the respondent no.1 is
      disentitled to any pensionary benefit by virtue of his wrongful appointment.
E     It is ordered accordingly. The appeal therefore stands allowed, leaving
      the parties to bear their own costs.


      Nidhi Jain                                                     Appeal allowed.

F




G




H