IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA  CIVIL  APPELLATE JURISDICTION

  CIVIL APPEAL NO.2036 OF 2006

O.N.G.C. LTD. Appellant(s)

       Versus

B. UMA & ORS.  Respondent(s)

O R D E R

We have heard learned counsel for the parties.

This  appeal by special leave is  directed against the judgment and

order dated 27th September, 2004 in Writ Petition Nos. 18114 and 18115 of 2002

passed  by  the  learned Single  Judge  of  the  Madras  High Court  whereby the

learned Single Judge of the High Court allowed the writ petitions and quashed the

order of termination as well as the order of State Level Caste Scrutiny Committee.

The brief facts which are necessary for the disposal of this appeal are

that the petitioner (respondent  herein) was working as  a Stenographer in the

O.N.G.C.  She  secured  the  appointment  on  the  basis  of  the  schedule  caste

certificate issued by the Tehsildar dated 3.7.1979.  A complaint was received and

the matter was referred by the Corporation-Appellant herein to the

-2-

Tehsildar and the Tehsildar in turn referred it to the District Vigilance Committee

and the District Vigilance Committee after considering the matter came to the

conclusion that the petitioner cannot be considered to be a scheduled caste by

Order dated 19th July, 2000.

Aggrieved  against  that  order  an  appeal  was  preferred  by  the

incumbent and the Appellate Authority confirmed the order of the District Level

Committee dated 29.4.2002.  Consequently, the appellant herein terminated the

services of the respondent by order dated 21.5.2002.  Therefore, the respondent

herein was driven to file a writ petition challenging the order dated 25th May, 2002

as well as the order passed by the District Vigilance Committee and by the State

Level  Committee  cancelling  the  certificate.   The  learned  Single  Judge,  after

considering the Government's Order G.O.Ms. No.477 dated 27.6.1975  whereby

the Government has laid down that in case of a marriage of  scheduled caste to a

non scheduled caste, their wards can chose the caste of either of the parents.   

In the present case,  the petitioner (respondent herein) when she was

admitted in the school,  adopted the caste of her father viz. Hindu Gowda but at

the time when she applied for service, she wanted to adopt the caste of

-3-

her mother i.e. Hindu Adi Dravida which is a scheduled caste community and on

that basis she secured the appointment.  But after the complaint was received and

the matter was referred to the District Vigilance Committee as well as to the State

Level Committee whereby they cancelled the certificate obtained by the incumbent

and her services were terminated.  Learned Single Judge after referring to the

aforesaid circular has held that the petitioner has right to adopt her mother's caste

and she  has  rightly secured the  appointment  and consequently,  set  aside  the

termination order of the petitioner.  Hence the appellant is in appeal  against the

aforesaid order passed by the learned Single Judge dated 27th September, 2004.

We have  heard  learned  counsel  for  the  parties  and  perused  the

record.

Learned counsel for the appellant has invited our attention to  the

decision of this Court in the case of Anjan Kumar versus Union of India & Ors.

reported in 2006 (3)  SCC  257 and read out the observation with regard to a

similar circular issued by the Government of  India dated 4.3.1975  which was

almost pari materia with this.  Learned Counsel for the respondent submitted that

this is a matter  

which has to be examined by the competent authority but in the present case

learned counsel pointed out that the

-4-

order passed by the District Vigilance Committee was bad. As per the circular the

Vigilance Committee has to be constituted by three members but in the present

case,  the vigilance committee was constituted of two persons only and this has

been affirmed by the State Level Committee.  Learned counsel submitted that this

goes to the root of the matter that the committee was not properly constituted.

Therefore,   setting  aside  the  certificate  by  the  Tehsildar and  by  the  District

Vigilance Committee was without jurisdiction and the same has been affirmed by

the Appellate Authority.  Therefore, learned counsel submits that this matter may

be remitted back to the Vigilance Committee.  Learned counsel submits that now

the committee has been properly constituted as per the G.O. (Ms.) No.111 dated

6.7.2005.  Therefore, it is clear that the initial order was bad as the Committee of

two persons was not a competent authority to have adjudicated the issue of caste

of the incumbent.  Therefore, we set aside this order and all other orders relating

to this issue and remit the matter back to the District Level Vigilance Committee

to reconsider the caste of the incumbent and pass an order in accordance with law.

The appeal is accordingly disposed of and the case is remitted back to

the District Level Vigilance Committee.

-5-

Let the Vigilance Committee expedite the matter and dispose of the

same as expeditiously as possible within six months from the date of receipt of the

copy of this order.

No order as to costs.

              ....................J.         (A.K.MATHUR)             

                          .....................J.             (P. SATHASIVAM)

New Delhi, July 29, 2008