http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 4  

CASE NO.: Appeal (civil)  54 of 2005

PETITIONER: G.M., INDIAN BANK

RESPONDENT: R. RANI & ANR

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 06/12/2007

BENCH: B.N. AGRAWAL & P.P. NAOLEKAR

JUDGMENT: J U D G M E N T  

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 54 OF 2005   WITH  Civil Appeal Nos. 59-61 of 2005, Civil Appeal Nos.  55-57 of  2005, Civil Appeal No. 50 of 2006, Civil Appeal No. 51 of  2006 WITH Civil Appeal No. 5661/2007 [Arising out of SLP (C)  Nos. 1823 of 2006]; Civil Appeal No. 5663/2007  [Arising out of SLP (C) No. 1829 of 2006]; Civil Appeal No.  5664/2007 [Arising out of SLP (C) No. 5746 of 2006];  Civil Appeal No. 5665/2007 [Arising out of SLP (C)  Nos. 18353 of 2005]; Civil Appeal Nos. 5668-5669/2007  [Arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 18694-18695 of 2005]; Civil  Appeal Nos. 5666-5667/2007 [Arising out of SLP (C) Nos.  12123-12124 of 2005]

B.N. AGRAWAL, J.  

1.      Leave granted.  2.     The private respondents in these appeals were  appointed in the banks against the vacancies of Scheduled  Tribe as they claimed themselves to be members of Konda  Reddy Community which is a Scheduled Tribe. Most of them  were appointed by the Indian Bank but some of them by the  State Bank of India. Subsequently it transpired that they did  not belong to Konda Reddy Community, as such an enquiry  was directed which was conducted by a District Level  Committee which found that they did not belong to Konda  Reddy Community and accordingly certificates granted in  their favour were cancelled. In all the cases, except in Civil  Appeal No. 54/2005, the private respondents challenged the  aforesaid decision of the District Level Committee before the  State Level Committee which confirmed the same in most of  the cases whereas in other cases matters remained pending  before the State Level Committee. In the meantime, in  accordance with the decisions of District Level Committee  the services of private respondents were terminated which  necessitated filing of the Writ Petitions before the High  Court, which have been allowed by different orders. In all the  cases orders passed by the Committee cancelling the  certificates and consequential orders of termination have  been quashed and it has been directed that it would be open  to the properly constituted Committee to hold fresh enquiry  in accordance with law. In some of the Writ Petitions  directions have been given for reinstatement also. In relation  to payment of back-wages it has been directed in some of the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 4  

Writ Petitions that the same would abide the result of  enquiry by a properly constituted Committee. In Civil Appeal  No. 54/2005 against the order of single Judge when the  matter was taken in appeal the same has been confirmed  whereas in other cases no appeal was filed. Hence, these  appeals by the Indian Bank as well as State Bank of India by  Special Leave. 3.      Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants  in support of the appeals submitted that the High Court was  not justified in holding that constitution of the Committee  was not in accordance with the judgment rendered by this  Court in the case of Kumari Madhuri Patil and Anr. vs.  Addl. Commissioner, Tribal Development and Ors., [1994]  6 SCC 241 as the directions contained therein in relation to  constitution of the Committee were mere guidelines. It was  further submitted that even if there was any infirmity in the  constitution of the District Level Committee, the order has  been confirmed by the State Level Committee which was  duly constituted, as such the High Court should not have  interfered. It was also submitted that the High Court was not  justified in directing the private respondents to be reinstated  in service. 4.      We first proceed to consider the  question as to whether  the directions contained in the decision of this court in the  case of Kumari Madhuri Patil (supra) were merely  guidelines or law laid down by this Court. In the case of  Kumari Madhuri Patil (supra) after due consideration the  Court gave various directions. Direction number 4 in  paragraph 13 at page 254 reads thus:  "4. All the State Governments shall  constitute a Committee of three officers,  namely, (I) an Additional or Joint Secretary  or any officer higher in rank of the Director  of the department concerned, (II) the  Director, Social Welfare/Tribal  Welfare/Backward Class Welfare, as the  case may be, and (III) in the case of  Scheduled Castes another officer who has  intimate knowledge in the verification and  issuance of the social status certificates. In  the case of the Scheduled Tribes, the  Research Officer who has intimate  knowledge in identifying the tribes, tribal  communities, parts of or groups of tribes or  tribal communities. "

5.      According to aforesaid direction No. 4, the Committee  for verifying the caste certificate shall be constituted of three  persons, viz., (I) an Administrative Officer, (II) the Director,  Social Welfare/Tribal Welfare/Backward Class Welfare, as  the case may be, and (III) in the case of Scheduled Castes,  an Officer who has intimate knowledge in the verification  and issuance of social status certificates and in the case of  Scheduled Tribes, the Research Officer who has intimate  knowledge in identifying the tribes, tribal communities, parts  of or groups of tribes or tribal communities. Subsequently  for recall of the aforesaid judgment a Petition was filed before  this Court which was disposed of in the case of Kumari  Madhuri Patil & Anr. vs. Addl. Commr., Tribal  Development, Thane and Ors. (1997) 5 SCC 437 and no  change was made in the constitution of the Committee.  6.      The directions given in the decision of Kumari Madhuri  Patil (supra) have been reiterated in the case of Director of  Tribal Welfare, Government of A.P. vs. Laveti Giri and  Anr., (1995) 4 SCC 32 in which while reiterating it was

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 4  

observed that Government of India should have the matter  examined in greater detail and bring about a uniform  legislation in relation to these matters. In the case of  Baswant vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors., JT 2000 (10) SC  280 this Court held that the constitution of the Committee  was not in accordance with the decision rendered by this  Court in Kumari Madhuri Patil (supra), as such the appeal  was allowed and it was directed to constitute the Committee  in terms of the decision of this Court in the case of Kumari  Madhuri Patil (supra) and decide the matter afresh. The  said directions of this Court in the case of Kumari Madhuri  Patil (supra) regarding constitution of Committee have been  approved by a 3-Judge Bench of this Court in the case of  Sudhakar Vithal Kumbhare v. State of Maharashtra and  Ors., (2004) 9 SCC 481 in which as the matter was not  referred to appropriate Committee  in terms of directions  given in the case of Kumari Madhuri Patil (supra) the  appeal was allowed and it was directed that the properly  constituted Committee shall decide the matter. In view of the  foregoing discussions it cannot be said that the directions  given in the case of Kumari Madhuri Patil (supra) were  simply guidelines. In our view, the law laid down in the case  of Kumari Madhuri Patil (supra) has been reiterated times  without number not only by 2-Judge Benches but even by a  3-Judge Bench of this Court. 7.      Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants  has relied upon the decision of this Court in the case of  Director of Tribal Welfare v. Laveti Giri and Others,   (1997) 4 SCC 271 in which draft rules prepared by the State  of Andhra Pradesh in relation to the constitution of  Committee was placed before the Court and this Court  directed the State Government to publish the same in the  Gazette. It has been submitted that according to the draft  rules the State Level Committee was required to be  constituted of six persons and District Level Committee of  five persons and it was mentioned in the rules that the  presence of three persons will form the required quorum for  the meeting of the Committee. In the District Level  Committee out of the five members, Scheduled Tribe and  Scheduled Caste Welfare Officer were mentioned in one  category and in another category, Anthropologist was  mentioned. As presence of the three members would form  the quorum it was submitted that even if the Welfare Officer  and Anthropologist are not there in the Committee the same  would not invalidate its constitution. From bare perusal of  the aforesaid judgment it would be clear that though the  draft rules have been approved by this Court and direction  has been given for its publication in the State Gazette but  nowhere it has been mentioned that the directions in the  case of Kumari Madhuri Patil (supra) have been modified in  any manner in relation to constitution of the Committee.  This being the position, we do not find any substance in the  first submission of the learned counsel appearing on behalf  of the appellants. 8.      So far as the second submission is concerned, we are of  the view that as the constitution of the District Level  Committee was in infraction of law laid down by this Court  in the case of Kumari Madhuri Patil (supra) the defect could  not have been cured by taking the matter in appeal to State  Level Committee. This being the position, we are of the view  that the High Court was quite justified in quashing the  orders passed by District Level Committee, State Level  Committee and the orders of termination.  9.      Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants  lastly submitted that the High Court should not have passed

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 4  

the order of reinstatement. This point is squarely concluded  by a 3-Judge Bench of this Court in the case of Sudhakar  Vithal Kumbhare (supra) in which on the ground of very  same infirmity in the constitution of the Committee the  direction was given by this Court to reinstate the  government servant till the matter was decided by the  Committee afresh. As such we do not find any substance in  this submission as well. 10.     For the foregoing reasons we do not find any merit in  these appeals which are accordingly dismissed and the  District Level Committee, now duly constituted by the State  Government, is directed to decide the matter afresh in  accordance with law within a period of six months from the  date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. In the  circumstances of the case, we direct that there shall be no  order as to costs.