REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO.      4636            OF 2008 (Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No. 9781 of 2005)

REGIONAL MANAGER, CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA

— APPELLANT (S)

VERSUS

MADHULIKA GURUPRASAD DAHIR & ORS.

— RESPONDENT (S)

J U D G M E N T

D.K. JAIN, J.:

Leave granted.

2.This  appeal,  by  special  leave,  has  been  preferred  by  the

Central  Bank of  India,  a public  sector  undertaking,  against

the judgment and order dated 6th April, 2005, passed by the

High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Nagpur Bench, in Writ

Petition No.2558  of  2003.   By the  impugned  judgment,  the

1

writ petition filed by the first respondent, hereinafter referred

to as ‘the employee’,  challenging the order of termination of

her services has been allowed with a direction to reinstate her

with continuity in service but without back-wages.

3.The  employee  was  appointed  to  the  post  of  Clerk  in  the

appellant-Bank with effect from 18th March, 1981, against a

post reserved for “Scheduled Tribes”, as she had claimed to be

belonging to “Thakur Scheduled Tribe”, on the basis of a caste

certificate issued on 4th December, 1979.  In March, 1991, she

was promoted as Junior Officer.  It appears that pursuant to

the instructions issued by the Government of India, Ministry

of  Finance,  Department  of  Economic  Affairs  on 23rd March,

1990,  directing  all  the  public  sector  banks/financial

institutions  to  get  the  caste  certificates  of  the  existing

employees, belonging to various scheduled tribes, verified, the

caste  certificate  filed  by  the  employee  was  referred  to  the

Committee  for  Scrutiny  and  Verification  of  Tribe  Claims,

Nagpur (for short the Scrutiny Committee),  respondent No.2

herein.

2

4.The Scrutiny Committee granted an opportunity of hearing

to the employee on 11th October, 1999; made its own inquiries

and found that the employee was not originally belonging to

“Thakur  Scheduled  Tribe”  but  had  obtained  the  Scheduled

Tribe certificate from the issuing authority to take advantage

of various concessions given to the tribal communities.  The

Scrutiny Committee discovered that the employee had studied

in Jeevan Shikshan Vidyalaya, Nagpur and by blotting out the

original  caste  “Rajput  Dahayat”  as mentioned in  the  school

leaving  certificate,  noted  down  the  caste  as  “Thakur”,  and

thus, took admission in college on the basis of caste certificate

“Thakur”,  which  caste  also  got  mentioned  in  the  college

leaving  certificate  of  the  employee.   In  the  absence  of  any

documentary evidence adduced by the employee to prove her

claim, the Scrutiny Committee relied on the affinity test and

found that  the  employee  did  not  show any affinity  towards

“Thakur Scheduled Tribe”.  Accordingly, vide its order dated

2nd May,  2000,  the  Scrutiny  Committee  cancelled  the  caste

certificate dated 4th December, 1979, issued to the employee.

3

5.The  aforesaid  order  of  the  Scrutiny  Committee  was

challenged  by the  employee  by way of  a writ  petition.   The

High Court allowed the writ petition on the ground that there

was  non  application  of  mind  on  the  part  of  the  Scrutiny

Committee;  set  aside  its  order  dated  2nd May,  2000  and

remanded  the  matter  to  the  Scrutiny  Committee  for

reconsideration of the caste claim of the employee.

6.Pursuant thereto, the Scrutiny Committee, reconsidered the

caste  claim  of  the  employee.   Concurring  with  its  earlier

findings,  vide  order  dated  29th May,  2003,  the  Committee

again rejected  the claim of  the  employee  and cancelled  the

caste certificate dated 4th December, 1979.  Consequently, by

order dated 28th June, 2003, the services of the employee were

terminated by the appellant on the ground that her tribe claim

had  been  invalidated.   Aggrieved,  the  employee  preferred  a

writ petition challenging both the said orders.

7.It is pertinent, however, to note that at the hearing of the

writ  petition  before  the  High  Court,  the  employee  did  not

challenge  the  correctness  of  the  order  of  the  Scrutiny

Committee,  dated  29th May,  2003  and  the  same  attained 4

finality, which manifestly shows that the employee  accepted

the finding of the Scrutiny Committee that she did not belong

to  “Thakur  Scheduled  Tribe”,  as  recorded  on  the  caste

certificate  filed  for  obtaining  employment.   The  order  of

termination of service was challenged only on the ground of

inordinately delay of more than 10 years in making a reference

to  the  Scrutiny  Committee  for  verification  of  the  caste

certificate.   Accepting  the  said  plea  of  the  employee,  while

upholding  the  order  of  the  Scrutiny  Committee  dated  29th

May, 2003, invalidating the caste certificate,  the High Court

has quashed the order of termination dated 28th June, 2003.

The High Court  has observed that since the services of the

employee have been terminated after a period of twenty two

years on the basis that she does not belong to the Scheduled

Tribe and the employee having herself given up the claim of

belonging  to  the  Scheduled  Tribe,  the  interest  of  justice

demands  that  the  employee  be  continued  in  service.

Aggrieved thereby, the appellant has come up before us in this

appeal.

5

8.Learned  counsel  appearing  on  behalf  of  the  appellant

submitted that having found that the findings of the Scrutiny

Committee  were  correct,  the  High  Court  should  not  have

quashed the order of termination of service, as admittedly the

employee had obtained appointment by fraudulent means by

producing  a  false  caste  certificate.    It  was  asserted  that

neither the delay in reference to the Scrutiny Committee nor

the time taken by the Committee in scrutinizing the certificate

can be used as a ground to validate a fraudulent action.  It

was also urged that  having entered  the service  by  deceitful

means, rendering of long period of services does not entitle the

appellant to any relief in equity.  In support of the proposition,

reliance was placed on the decisions of this Court in  Addl.

General  Manager—Human  Resource,  Bharat  Heavy

Electricals Ltd. Vs.  Suresh Ramkrishna Burde1 and Bank

of India & Anr. Vs. Avinash D. Mandivikar & Ors.2.

9.Per contra, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the

employee,  while  supporting  the  decision  of  the  High Court,

submitted that in the absence of any finding by the Scrutiny

1  (2007) 5 SCC 336 2  (2005) 7 SCC 690

6

Committee  that  the  caste  certificate  had  been  obtained

fraudulently,  the  High  Court  was  justified  in  directing  her

reinstatement.   Learned  counsel  contended  that  it  has  not

been evolved as a general principle that in every case where

the  caste  claim is  rejected,  the equitable  jurisdiction of  the

Court  is  ousted.   In  support  of  the  submission  that  the

parameters  for  consideration  of  claim  for  employment  are

different in a case of fraud as compared to a mere rejection of

such a claim, learned counsel referred us to the decisions of

this Court  in  Suresh Ramkrishna Burde  (supra),  Manjula

Sircar & Ors.  Vs.  Harendra Bahadur Singh & Ors.3 and

Punjab National Bank & Anr.  Vs.  Vilas,  S/O Govindrao

Bokade & Anr.4.

10.The sequence and the narration of facts above leaves little

doubt  in  our  mind  that  the  caste  certificate,  on  the  basis

whereof  the  employee  got  employment,  was  false  to  her

knowledge.   Based  on  that  the  Scrutiny  Committee,  on

reconsideration  after  remand by the High Court,  vide  order

dated  29th May,  2003,  again  invalidated  employee’s  caste

3  AIR 2007 SC 3211 4  2007 (8) SCALE 108

7

certificate,  resulting  in  termination of  the  services  by  order

dated 28th June, 2003 (supra).  As noted above, the said order

of  the Scrutiny Committee  having not been challenged,  has

attained finality and remains in operation.  It is, thus, not a

case of mere rejection of a claim and the cited authorities are

inapplicable.

11.In  the  above  background,  the  questions  for  our

consideration would be: (i) whether delay in making reference

to  the  Scrutiny  Committee  for  verification  of  the  caste

certificate  as  also  the  delay  on  the  part  of  the  Scrutiny

Committee  in  such  verification  per  se  vitiates  the  order  of

termination  of  services  of  an  employee,  even  when  the

certificate  is  ultimately  found  to  be  false  and  (ii)  whether

because  of  the  employee  having  rendered  services  to  the

employer for over twenty years, would it be equitable to cancel

her  appointment,  when  admittedly  in  the  first  instance  the

employee was not eligible for such appointment?  

12.Both the issues are no longer res integra.  The implications

of misuse of the benefits conferred by the Constitution on a

particular section or sections of the citizenry were highlighted 8

by this Court in  Kumari Madhuri Patil & Anr.  Vs.  Addl.

Commissioner,  Tribal  Development & Ors.5.   It  was said

that  the  admission  wrongly  gained  or  appointment  wrongly

obtained  on  the  basis  of  false  social  status  certificate

necessarily has the effect of depriving the genuine Scheduled

Castes or Scheduled Tribes or OBC candidates as enjoined in

the  Constitution  of  the  benefits  conferred  on  them  by  the

Constitution.  The  genuine  candidates  are  also  denied

admission to educational institutions or appointments to office

or  posts  under  a  State  for  want  of  social  status  certificate.

Therefore,  with  a  view  to  streamline  the  procedure  for  the

issuance of social status certificates, their scrutiny and their

approval, the Court issued as many as fifteen directions.  One

of the directions so issued, was that as soon as the finding is

recorded  by  the  Scrutiny  Committee,  holding  that  the

certificate  obtained  was  false,  on  its  cancellation  and

confiscation  simultaneously,  it  should  be  communicated  to

the  educational  institution  concerned,  or  the  appointing

authority  with  a  request  to  cancel  the  admission  or  the

appointment.  Thereupon,  the admission or the appointment 5  (1994) 6 SCC 241

9

shall be cancelled without any further notice to the candidate

and  the  candidate  shall  be  debarred  from further  study  or

continue in office in a post.

13.Similarly, the plea regarding rendering of services for a long

period  has  been  considered  and  rejected  in  a  series  of

decisions of this Court and we deem it unnecessary to launch

on exhaustive  dissertation on principles  in this  context.   It

would suffice to state that except in a few decisions, where the

admission/appointment was not cancelled because of peculiar

factual  matrix  obtaining  therein,  the  consensus  of  judicial

opinion is that equity, sympathy or generosity has no place

where  the  original  appointment  rests  on  a  false  caste

certificate.  A person who enters the service by producing a

false  caste  certificate  and obtains  appointment  for  the  post

meant for a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe or OBC, as

the case may be, deprives a genuine candidate falling in either

of the said categories, of appointment to that post, does not

deserve any sympathy or indulgence of this Court.  He who

comes  to  the  Court  with  a  claim  based  on  falsity  and

deception cannot plead equity nor the Court would be justified

1 0

to  exercise  equity  jurisdiction  in  his  favour.   An  act  of

deliberate deception with a design to secure something, which

is  otherwise  not  due,  tantamounts  to  fraud.   Fraud  is  a

conduct  either  by  letter  or  words,  which induces  the  other

person or authority to take a definite determinative stand as a

response to the conduct of the former either by words or letter.

[See:  R. Vishwanatha Pillai  Vs. State of Kerala & Ors.6¸

Bank  of  India  (supra), Addl.  General  Manager  (supra),

Derry Vs. Peek7, Ram Preeti Yadav Vs. U.P. Board of High

School and Intermediate Education & Ors.8 and Bhaurao

Dagdu Paralkar Vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors.9]

14.In  Ram Chandra Singh  Vs.  Savitri Devi & Ors.10, this

Court had observed that fraud is anathema to all  equitable

principles  and  any  affair  tainted  with  fraud  cannot  be

perpetuated  or  saved  by  the  application  of  any  equitable

doctrine.

6  (2004) 2 SCC 105 7  (1889) 14 AC 337 8  (2003) 8 SCC 311 9  (2005) 7 SCC 605 10  (2003) 8 SCC 319

1 1

15.Recently,  in  State  of  Maharashtra  &  Ors.  Vs.  Ravi

Prakash  Babulalsing  Parmar  &  Anr.11, dealing  with  a

similar situation, this Court has observed thus:

“The  makers  of  the  Constitution  laid emphasis  on  equality  amongst  citizens. The  Constitution  of  India  provides  for protective discrimination and reservation so as to enable the disadvantaged group to come on the same platform as that of the  forward  community.  If  and  when  a person takes an undue advantage of the said  beneficent  provision  of  the Constitution by obtaining the benefits of reservation  and  other  benefits  provided under the Presidential Order although he is not entitled thereto, he not only plays a fraud  on  the  society  but  in  effect  and substance  plays  a  fraud  on  the Constitution.  When,  therefore,  a certificate is granted to a person who is not  otherwise  entitled  thereto,  it  is entirely  incorrect  to  contend  that  the State  shall  be  helpless  spectator  in  the matter.”

16.Having  considered  the  matter  in  the  light  of  the  afore-

stated legal position, in our judgment, the decision of the High

Court  is  untenable.   As  noted  supra,  the  employee  having

accepted the finding of the Scrutiny Committee, holding that

the caste certificate furnished by the employee was false, the

very  foundation  of  her  appointment  vanished  and  her

11  (2007) 1 SCC 80

1 2

appointment was rendered illegal.  Her conduct renders her

unfit to be continued in service and must necessarily entail

termination of her service.   Under these circumstances, there

is absolutely  no justification for her claim in respect  of  the

post merely on the ground that she had worked on the post for

over  twenty  years.  The  post  was  meant  for  a  reserved

candidate  but  she  usurped  the  same  by  misrepresentation

and deception.  In our opinion, the fact that caste certificate

was referred to the Scrutiny Committee for verification after

ten years of her joining the service and a long time was taken

by  the  Scrutiny  Committee  to  verify  the  same  is  of  no

consequence inasmuch as delay on both the counts does not

validate  the  caste  certificate  and  the  consequent  illegal

appointment.

17.We  are  also  unable  to  persuade  ourselves  to  agree  with

learned counsel for the employee that in the absence of any

finding of fraud having been played by the employee, the order

of the High Court is equitable  and should not be interfered

with.   As  noted  above,  the  selection  of  the  employee  was

1 3

conceived  in  deceit  and,  therefore,  could  not  be  saved  by

equitable considerations.   

18.In  view  of  the  aforegoing  discussion,  the  impugned

judgment  and  order  quashing  the  order  of  termination  of

service  of  the  employee  and  directing  her  reinstatement

cannot be sustained.  The order of termination based on the

report  of  the  Scrutiny  Committee  does  not  suffer  from any

infirmity and the High Court should not have interfered with

the same.   

19.Accordingly, the appeal is allowed, the judgment and order

of the High Court dated 6th April, 2005 is set aside but with no

order as to costs.

.…………………………………………J.        (C.K. THAKKER)  

                              ..….…………………………………….J.        (D.K. JAIN)

NEW DELHI; JULY 25, 2008.

1 4