TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (9) TMI 165
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ndition (vii) of the said Appointment Letter is of some relevance. It reads thus:- "(vii). In case you belong to Scheduled Caste/Tribe, the appointment is provisional and is subject to verification of Scheduled Caste/Tribe certificate through proper channels and if on verification, your claim to belong to Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe, as the case may be, is found to be false, your services will be terminated forthwith without assigning any reason and without prejudice to such further action that may be taken under the Indian penal Code for production of false certificate." (emphasis supplied) 3. Before joining the post of Chemical Examiner in the Customs and Central Excise Department on 21st November, 1995, the appellant had worked in other Departments of the Government of India; on being selected through the Union Public Service Commission, to the post of "Senior Technical Assistant" in the Indian Bureau of Mines from 14.02.1985 to 12.05.1986; as an "Assistant Chemist (Group B Gazetted)" in the Geological Survey of India between 15.05.1986 to 31.05.1989; as "Chemist (Groups A Gazetted)" in the Indian Bureau of Mines between 05.06.1989 up to 12.04.1994; and as "Deputy D....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....9.81 is hereby cancelled." 5. On receipt of the said order of the Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee, the appellant made representations to the Chairman, Central Board of Excise and Customs on 20.01.2004 and 21.01.2004. The substance of the representations was founded on the caste certificate issued by the Executive Magistrate, dated 14th September, 1986, which, the appellant asserted was obtained bona- fide and in good faith on the basis of the school record indicating that the appellant belongs to Caste "Halba", a notified Scheduled Tribe in Maharashtra. The appellant further asserted that he did not furnish false information of his caste; and more so the question whether or not "Koshti" caste belongs to "Halba" Scheduled Tribe was subject matter of immense debate and was conclusively answered by the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in the case of State of Maharashtra vs. Milind and Others(2001) 1 SCC 4), decided on November 28, 2000. The appellant thus contended that his appointment already made on the basis of the caste certificate issued prior to that decision was protected even in terms of the dictum of the Constitution Bench in Milind's case. This stand of the app....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 6. The principal argument of the appellant is that the decision of the Constitution Bench in Milind's case itself protects all appointments which have become final. The decision of the three Judges' Bench relied by the High Court in the impugned judgment has been considered and explained in the subsequent decisions in the case of Kavita Solunke v/s State of Maharashtra and Ors. (2012) 8 SCC 430), Shalini v/s New English High School Association and Others(2013) 16 SCC 526) and in R. Unnikrishnan and Another v/s V.K. Kahanudevan and Others (2014) 4 SCC 434). According to the appellant, following the consistent view of this Court, the appointment, even in the case of the appellant, should be protected. For, the claim of the appellant was not a false claim, but a bona fide claim founded on the entries in the school record and the certificate issued by the Executive Magistrate. It is not a case of false or dishonest claim set up by the appellant; or for that matter fabrication of records or reliance placed on fraudulent caste certificate. 7. Per contra, the respondents contend that the principle stated in the subsequent decisions of this Court will be of no avail to the appellant. In ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....o the post of Assistant Chemist, in the Geological Survey of India, was confirmed in terms of Notification No. 1225 B/ A-31013/Asstt. Chemist/95-19C, dated 5.5.1995 with effect from 15th May, 1988, his appointment to the post of "Chemical Examiner" in the Customs and Central Excise Department with which we are concerned was provisional and subject to verification of his caste claim of "Halba". It was not treated as final by the Department till the impugned termination order was issued. Nothing has been brought to our notice by the appellant to show that his appointment on that post was in fact treated as confirmed by the concerned Department, before issuing the impugned order of termination. Had it been a case of termination from the post of "Assistant Chemist", on which the appellant was confirmed by the concerned Department, the argument canvassed by the appellant would have assumed some significance and could be tested with reference to the recent decisions of this Court pressed into service by the appellant. 10. Admittedly, the appellant was appointed to the post of Chemical Examiner in the Customs and Central Excise Department, where he joined on 24th November, 1995, pursuant....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 1984, for which the Court held that the same should not be disturbed. Similarly, in the case of Unnikrishnan and Another (supra), the Court was dealing with the matter where the caste claim was already made subject matter of challenge before the Court and was upheld. It was a case where a judicial order passed inter partes had become final on that issue. In that case, the caste claim enquiry was insisted because of the subsequent Presidential Order excluding the concerned caste from the entry notified under notification dated 31st August 2007. The Court, inter alia, opined that it was not open to reconsider the settled judicial pronouncement on the caste claim inter partes. 12. In none of the cases pressed into service by the appellant, the appointment, as in this case, was on provisional basis and subject to verification of caste certificate through proper channel. It necessarily follows that the principle expounded in the three decisions referred to above, can have no application to the case on hand. Indubitably, if the argument of the appellant was accepted, it would inevitably mean that all appointments made before 28.11.2000 must be protected even though it had not become fi....