High CourtsDIVISION BENCH(2017) 01 KAR CK 0368

The Chairman-cum-Managing Director The New India Assurance Co. Ltd., & Ors. vs Sri.Pranesh B Nayak, & Ors.

Karnataka High Court · Decided on 31 January 2017

HON’BLE JUDGES
Subhro Kamal Mukherjee, Budihal R.B.
RESULT
Dismissed
CASE NUMBER
3739 of 2016 (S-DIS)

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

10 paragraphs · 265 words
1.

This is an appeal against judgment and order dated August 18, 2016, allowing the Writ Petition No.13214 of 2015.

2.

The writ petitioner, who is the respondent No.1 in the appeal, was appointed as an Assistant in the year 1979 in the reserved category of Scheduled Tribe. The writ petitioner had submitted a caste certificate issued by the Tahasildar, Dharwad district, dated August 16, 1978, showing that he belonged to ''Nayaka'' community, which has been a Scheduled Tribe community.

3.

The writ petitioner had rendered 35 (thirty five) years of unblemished service to the New India Assurance Company Limited. On March 26, 2014, a notice was issued alleging that the writ petitioner has procured the employment by producing a false caste certificate.

4.

''Nayaka'' community, admittedly, is in the list of Scheduled Tribe as per Presidential Order issued during 1950''s.

5.

The Supreme Court of India in KAVITA SOLUNKE - versus

- STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS reported in (2012) 8 SCC 430, held that when a person had been appointed on the basis of a caste certificate issued and had discharged his duties for decades, removing him from duty on the ground of false caste certificate, that too, at the fag end of service, was not justifiable.

6.

In such view of the matter, we do not find any error in the order of the Hon''ble Single Judge.

7.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed.

8.

In view of dismissal of the appeal, the pending interlocutory application does not survive for consideration and is, also, dismissed.

9.

We make no order as to costs.