AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Per: Justice B. P. Sharma
This appeal has been preferred under Section 2(1) of the Madhya Pradesh Uchha Nyayalaya (Khand Nyayapeeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005 against order dated 04.09.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No.5175 of 2007 as well as the subsequent order dated 15.10.2025 passed in the modification applications arising therefrom. By the impugned order, the learned Single Judge partly allowed the writ petition preferred by the respondent and set aside the order of dismissal dated 22.11.2014 and directed grant of consequential service benefits to the respondent.
The respondent was appointed in the Food and Civil Supplies Department against a post reserved for Scheduled Castes on the strength of a caste certificate certifying her as belonging to the "Dhobi" Scheduled Caste. During verification of caste certificate, the State Level Caste Scrutiny Committee found that the respondent's father originally belonged to Nagpur in the State of Maharashtra, where the Dhobi caste was not recognised as a Scheduled Caste but, only as an Other Backward Class. Accordingly, by order dated 04.02.2002, the Committee invalidated her Scheduled Caste claim. The respondent challenged the said order in W.P. No.6179/2002, wherein this Court remanded the matter to the Scrutiny Committee with a specific direction to reconsider the issue in the light of General Administration Department Circular dated 01.08.1996, particularly Clause-15 thereof dealing with involuntary migration and also keeping in view paragraphs-13.6 and 13.7 of Kumari Madhuri Patil v. Additional Commissioner, Tribal Development (1994) 6 SCC 241. After remand, the Committee again rejected the respondent's claim by order dated 29.12.2006. During the pendency of writ petition, she was dismissed from service on 22.11.2014, only seven days before attaining the age of superannuation. The dismissal order was also challenged by amendment in the writ petition.
Learned Deputy Advocate General appearing on behalf of the appellants submitted that the Committee after examining all the documentary evidence and the applicable Government policy, had rightly concluded that the respondent's father was originally a permanent resident of Nagpur in the State of Maharashtra and belonged to a community which was recognized only as an Other Backward Class in that State. Therefore, merely because he was subsequently posted in Madhya Pradesh and the respondent was born and educated in Madhya Pradesh, she could not claim the benefit of Scheduled Caste status notified exclusively for the State of Madhya Pradesh. It was further submitted that Articles 341 and 342 of the Constitution contemplates State-specific recognition of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes and such status cannot travel from one State to another merely on account of migration. The learned Single Judge, according to the appellants, failed to appreciate the scheme governing Scheduled Castes and erred in extending the benefit of the Government Circular beyond its intended scope.
It was further argued that the Scrutiny Committee had duly considered the Government Circular dated 01.08.1996 regarding involuntary migration and had recorded a categorical finding that the respondent was not entitled to its benefit. Therefore, in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, the learned Single Judge ought not to have re-appreciated the factual findings recorded by the expert Committee. It was also contended that once the respondent was found not entitled to claim Scheduled Caste status, the consequential dismissal order dated 22.11.2014 was perfectly legal and no interference therewith was warranted.
In support of the aforesaid submissions, learned counsel for the appellants placed reliance upon the decisions of the Supreme Court in Vijakumar vs. State of Maharashtra and Others (2010) 14 SCC 489, Mah. Adivasi Thakur Jamat Swarakshan Samiti vs. State of Maharashtra and Others (2023) 16 SCC 415, Chairman and Managing Director, FCI and Others vs. Jagdish Balaram Bahira and Others (2017) 8 SCC 670, State of Punjab and Others vs. Davinder Singh and Others (2025) 1 SCC 1 (Constitution Bench) and Kumari Madhuri Patil and Another vs. Additional Commissioner, Tribal Development and Others (1994) 6 SCC 241.
6 . Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the respondent's father had not voluntarily migrated to Madhya Pradesh but, was allocated to the State consequent upon the States Reorganisation Act, 1956. Therefore, her case was squarely covered by Clause-15 of the Circular dated 01.08.1996 governing involuntary migration. It was also argued that the respondent had obtained the caste certificate from the competent authority without any fraud or suppression, had served the State Government for several decades and was dismissed only at the fag end of her service. Consequently, the learned Single Judge rightly exercised equitable jurisdiction while protecting her retiral benefits. Reliance was placed on State of Maharashtra v. Milind (2001) 1 SCC 4; Action Committee on Issue of Caste Certificate v. Union of India (1994) 5 SCC 244.
Heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record.
While reconsidering the matter pursuant to the directions issued by this Court in W.P. No.6179/2002, the State Level Caste Scrutiny Committee undertook a detailed examination of the respondent's claim and recorded that her father was originally a resident of Nagpur in the State of Maharashtra whose services were allocated to the State of Madhya Pradesh upon reorganisation of States in the year 1956. The Committee found that caste "Dhobi" was never recognised as a Scheduled Caste in the State of Maharashtra and was initially in the general category before being included in the Other Backward Classes category. It also noted that in Madhya Pradesh the caste "Dhobi" enjoys Scheduled Caste status only in the districts of Bhopal, Raisen and Sehore whereas in other districts, it falls under the OBC category. After considering the respondent's educational background, residence and marriage in Madhya Pradesh, the Committee concluded that these factors could not alter the constitutional status of her caste. The Committee observed that the respondent was born in Madhya Pradesh, despite her own admission that she was born at Nagpur, it ultimately held that even if, her case was treated as one of involuntary migration, such migration could not convert a caste recognised as OBC in Maharashtra into a Scheduled Caste in Madhya Pradesh. On these premises, the Committee held that the respondent was not entitled to a Scheduled Caste certificate as "Dhobi" and consequently was not entitled to continue enjoying the benefits obtained on the strength of the said caste certificate.
The learned Single Judge, after considering the constitutional scheme and the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Marri Chandra (supra), Action Committee (supra), and Milind (supra), held that Scheduled Caste status is State-specific and cannot automatically migrate from one State to another merely because a person belongs to a caste bearing the same nomenclature. It was observed that the conferment of Scheduled Caste status depends upon the social and educational backwardness prevailing in a particular State or specified geographical area as recognised under the Constitution (Scheduled Castes) Order, 1950. Since the caste "Dhobi" was not recognised as a Scheduled Caste in the State of Maharashtra and its Scheduled Caste status in Madhya Pradesh was confined only to the districts of Bhopal, Raisen and Sehore, the respondent could not claim such status merely on the basis of migration. Accordingly, it was held that the State Level Caste Scrutiny Committee had committed no error in concluding that the respondent was not entitled to be treated as a member of the Scheduled Caste "Dhobi" in the State of Madhya Pradesh and to that extent, the Committee's order deserved to be upheld.
However, the learned Single Judge further observed that the present case stood on a different footing so far as the consequential service benefits were concerned. The respondent had entered Government service on the strength of a caste certificate issued by the competent authority, had rendered her entire service career without any allegation of fraud, forgery or misrepresentation, and was dismissed only at the verge of her superannuation. Relying upon Milind (supra) and other decisions, the learned Single Judge held that in exceptional circumstances, where an employee had acted bona fide and had completed the entire service career on the basis of a certificate issued by the competent authority, equity demanded protection of accrued service benefits despite invalidation of the caste claim.
Perusal of the record reflects that there was absolutely no finding of fraud, impersonation or misrepresentation against the respondent. The caste certificate had been issued by the competent authority. The vigilance inquiry as well as the report of the Superintendent of Police did not attribute any dishonest conduct to her. She had served the Government throughout her service career and was removed only seven days before retirement. These exceptional facts clearly distinguish the present case from ordinary cases of fraudulent caste claims.
Consequently, while affirming the finding of the State Level Caste Scrutiny Committee that the respondent was not entitled to Scheduled Caste status, the learned Single Judge partially interfered with the impugned order by setting aside only that part which deprived the respondent of all benefits earned during her service. The order of dismissal dated 22.11.2014 was quashed and the respondent was held entitled to all consequential retiral benefits upon superannuation. However, since the Committee had rightly held that the respondent did not belong to the Scheduled Caste "Dhobi", the learned Single Judge declined to award interest on the retiral dues, holding that no fault could be attributed to the authorities in undertaking caste verification proceedings.
In the case of Madhuri Patil (supra), the Apex Court has streamlined the procedure for issuance of social status certificates in following manner:-
"13.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. The ineligible or spurious persons who falsely gained entry resort to dilatory tactics and create hurdles in completion of the inquiries by the Scrutiny Committee. It is true that the applications for admission to educational institutions are generally made by a parent, since on that date many a time the student may be a minor. It is the parent or the guardian who may play fraud claiming false status certificate. It is, therefore, necessary that the certificates issued are scrutinised at the earliest and with utmost expedition and promptitude. For that purpose, it is necessary to streamline the procedure for the issuance of social status certificates, their scrutiny and their approval, which may be the following:
1.The application for grant of social status certificate shall be made to the Revenue Sub-Divisional Officer and Deputy Collector or Deputy Commissioner and the certificate shall be issued by such officer rather than at the Officer, Taluk or Mandal level.
2.The parent, guardian or the candidate, as the case may be, shall file an affidavit duly sworn and attested by a competent gazetted officer or non-gazetted officer with particulars of castes and sub-castes, tribe, tribal community, parts or groups of tribes or tribal communities, the place from which he originally hails from and other particulars as may be prescribed by the Directorate concerned.
3.Application for verification of the caste certificate by the Scrutiny Committee shall be filed at least six months in advance before seeking admission into educational institution or an appointment to a post.
4.All the State Governments shall constitute a Committee of three officers, namely, (1) an Additional or Joint Secretary or any officer higher in rank of the Director of the department concerned, (11) 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.Each Directorate should constitute a vigilance cell consisting of Senior Deputy Superintendent of Police in over-all charge and such number of Police Inspectors to investigate into the social status claims. The Inspector would go to the local place of residence and original place from which the candidate hails and usually resides or in case of migration to the town or city, the place from which he originally hailed from. The vigilance officer should personally verify and collect all the facts of the social status claimed by the candidate or the parent or guardian, as the case may be. He should also examine the school records, birth registration, if any. He should also examine the parent, guardian or the candidate in relation to their caste etc. or such other persons who have knowledge of the social status of the candidate and then submit a report to the Directorate together with all particulars as envisaged in the pro forma, in particular, of the Scheduled Tribes relating to their peculiar anthropological and ethnological traits, deity, rituals, customs, mode of marriage, death ceremonies, method of burial of dead bodies etc. by the castes or tribes or tribal communities concerned etc.
6.The Director concerned, on receipt of the report from the vigilance officer if he found the claim for social status to be "not genuine" or 'doubtful' or spurious or falsely or wrongly claimed, the Director concerned should issue show-cause notice supplying a copy of the report of the vigilance officer to the candidate by a registered post with acknowledgement due or through the head of the educational institution concerned in which the candidate is studying or employed. The notice should indicate that the representation or reply, if any, would be made within two weeks from the date of the receipt of the notice and in no case on request not more than 30 days from the date of the receipt of the notice.In case, the candidate seeks for an opportunity of hearing and claims an inquiry to be made in that behalf, the Director on receipt of such representation/reply shall convene the committee and the Joint/Additional Secretary as Chairperson who shall give reasonable opportunity to the candidate/parent/guardian to adduce all evidence in support of their claim. A public notice by beat of drum or any other convenient mode may be published in the village or locality and if any person or association opposes such a claim, an opportunity to adduce evidence may be given to him/it. After giving such opportunity either in person or through counsel, the Committee may make such inquiry as it deems expedient and consider the claims vis-a-vis the objections raised by the candidate or opponent and pass an appropriate order with brief reasons in support thereof.
7.In case the report is in favour of the candidate and found to be genuine and true, no further action need be taken except where the report or the particulars given are procured or found to be false or fraudulently obtained and in the latter event the same procedure as is envisaged in para 6 be followed.
8.Notice contemplated in para 6 should be issued to the parents/guardian also in case candidate is minor to appear before the Committee with all evidence in his or their support of the claim for the social status certificates.
9.The inquiry should be completed as expeditiously as possible preferably by day-to-day proceedings within such period not exceeding two months. If after inquiry, the Caste Scrutiny Committee finds the claim to be false or spurious, they should pass an order cancelling the certificate issued and confiscate the same. It should communicate within one month from the date of the conclusion of the proceedings the result of enquiry to the parent/guardian and the applicant.
10.In case of any delay in finalising the proceedings, and in the meanwhile the last date for admission into an educational institution or appointment to an officer post, is getting expired, the candidate be admitted by the Principal or such other authority competent in that behalf or appointed on the basis of the social status certificate already issued or an affidavit duly sworn by the parent/guardian/candidate before the competent officer or non-official and such admission or appointment should be only provisional, subject to the result of the inquiry by the Scrutiny Committee.
11.The order passed by the Committee shall be final and conclusive only subject to the proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution.
12.No suit or other proceedings before any other authority should lie.
13.The High Court would dispose of these cases as expeditiously as possible within a period of three months. In case, as per its procedure, the writ petition/miscellaneous petition/matter is disposed of by a Single Judge, then no further appeal would lie against that order to the Division Bench but subject to special leave under Article 136.
14.In case, the certificate obtained or social status claimed is found to be false, the parent/guardian/the candidate should be prosecuted for making false claim. If the prosecution ends in a conviction and sentence of the accused, it could be regarded as an offence involving moral turpitude, disqualification for elective posts or offices under the State or the Union or elections to any local body, legislature or Parliament.
15.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 by registered post with acknowledgement due with a request to cancel the admission or the appointment. The Principal etc. of the educational institution responsible for making the admission or the appointing authority, should cancel the admission/appointment without any further notice to the candidate and debar the candidate from further study or continue in office in a post."
The petitioner herein was appointed in the year 1974. After the judgment in Milind (supra), a Circular dated 07-03-2011 was issued by the State Government, which protected the service conditions as prevailing on 28-11-2000.
In the present case, the respondent was appointed on 25-09-1974. This Court while considering this aspect in Writ Apepal No. 1021/2026 ( State of M.P. vs. Hemant Bhangre ) protected the service conditions, who were appointed prior to 28-11-2000. Present case also moves in same factual realm.
The judgments relied upon by the appellants have also been rightly distinguished. Kumari Madhuri Patil (supra) only prescribes the procedure for verification of caste certificates and in fact, the earlier remand order itself, directed the Committee to act in accordance with that judgment. Vijakumar (supra) was a case concerning invalidation of caste claim after appreciation of evidence and has no application to a case involving involuntary migration protected by Clause-15 of the Circular dated 01.08.1996. J. Chitra (supra) relates to repeated reopening of caste verification proceedings and not to the consequences arising after an employee has completed an entire service career. Davinder Singh (supra) concerns sub-classification within Scheduled Castes and is wholly unrelated to the issue involved herein. Likewise, Jagdish Balaram Bahira (supra) and Mah. Adivasi Thakur (supra) arose under the Maharashtra statutory framework and principally deal with fraudulent or invalid caste claims whereas in the present case, there is no allegation of fraud and the respondent's claim is founded upon involuntary migration under a Government policy.
Accordingly, we find no perversity or illegality in the judgment of the learned Single Judge warranting interference in the present appeal. The judgment dated 04.09.2025, as clarified by the order dated 15.10.2025, is affirmed. The writ appeal being devoid of merit is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.