H.L.Gokhale, J. - (1.) Heard Mr. Ashok Mehta, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Pankaj Naqvi, who appears for respondents nos.2, 3 and 4.
(2.) The appeal is filed by an employee of the Banaras Hindu University. He joined as a Clerk in the University on 25.10.1979 in a post, which was meant for Scheduled Caste & Scheduled Tribe candidate. The advertisement given by the University clearly stated that the post was meant only for Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe candidate. Later on in the year 1986, he got promoted on a post again meant for Scheduled Tribe candidate. Subsequently, it was detected that he did not belong to Scheduled Tribe category and, therefore, a departmental proceeding was initiated in the year 1993 leading to the termination of his services on 18.1.1998. It is this order that he challenged by filing a writ petition to this Court.
(3.) The learned Single Judge of this Court heard the matter and noted that whereas the advertisement clearly provided that the seat was meant for Schedule Tribe candidate, the appellant had given in writing on his application form that he belongs to Scheduled Tribe category. He had written at the bottom of the application form that 'I am belonging to Scheduled Tribe. Certificate will be submitted at the time of interview'. The certificate of caste submitted by the appellant showed that he belongs to 'Mallah' community, which is not Scheduled Tribe. It is material to note that in the counter affidavit filed by the respondents, it was clearly placed on the record and in para-6, a specific averment was made as to how this fraud was detected. The petitioner had not given proper reply. Learned counsel for the University pointed out that there was no specific averment in the rejoinder affidavit, although a detailed reply affidavit was filed. In view of the all these and other factors, the learned Judge has dismissed the writ petition, and while dismissing the writ petition, the learned Judge relied upon a judgement of the Hon'ble Apex Court in R. Vishwanatha Pillai v. State of Kerala and ors., reported in JT 2004 (1) SC 88 . The learned Judge has taken a view that no sympathy should be shown to a person like the appellant and, therefore, he directed refund of the entire salary from the date of his engagement. It is this order, which is challenged in this appeal.;