- (1.) THESE special appeals have been filed against the judgment and order dated 19. 9. 2002 passed by the learned Single Judge by which the two petitions filed by the respondent employee have been allowed directing the Life Insurance Corporation of India (hereinafter called the 'corporation') to reinstate the respondent employee with full back wages and all consequential benefits.
(2.) THE facts and circumstances giving rise to these cases are that the Corporation advertised certain posts of Assistants. THE respondent employee submitted his application along with a caste certificate dated 5. 10. 1970 issued by the Additional District Magistrate (Administration), Gorakhpur certifying that the he was a Shilpkar (Artisan) by caste, which falls in the category of Scheduled Caste. THE respondent employee was selected and appointed vide appointment letter dated 6. 12. 1971. After about 12 years on 5. 10. 1983, on receiving a complaint, the Corporation asked the said employee to submit his original caste certificate whichhe submitted on 5 12. 1983. THE Corporation also wrote to the District Magistrate, Gorakhpur to furnish information about the caste of the said employee. THE Additional District Magistrate submitted a report dated 4. 2. 1988 after holding the enquiry without involving the said employee, that he was a Badhai (Carpenter) bycaste and not a Shilpkar. THE Corporation on receiving the said report, issued a charge-sheet dated 22. 3. 1988 on the ground that the said employee had procured the employment as an Assistant in the Corporation on the basis of a false wrong caste certificate. During the course of enquiry, the Corporation again asked the District Magistrate, Gorakhpur to clarify about the caste of the said employee and in response thereto, the District Magistrate vide letter dated 15. 10. 1989 informed the Corporation that upon due enquiry, he was of the view that the castecertificate submitted by the respondent employee at the time of entry in servicewas doubtful as it appeared that he was by caste a Badhai (Carpenter ). THEenquiry report was submitted on 11. 8. 1990 and after giving an opportunity to thesaid employee for submitting his explanation, the final order of termination ofservices of the respondent employee was passed on 9. 5. 1991 by the Disciplinaryauthority, against which he preferred an appeal which was also dismissed videorder dated 17. 1. 1992. Being aggrieved, two writ petitions were filed by the said employee challenging the said order of termination, which merged into the order of Appellate Authority as well as for quashing the report dated 15. 10. 1989 submitted by the District Magistrate wherein a doubt regarding the caste certificate ofthe said employee had been expressed. T he learned Single Judge considered the matter at length and came to the conclusion that the report submitted by the District Magistrate was prepared behind the back of the said employee and no opportunity of hearing was given to him. The Disciplinary Authority had recorded a finding that the said employee failed to disprove the report submitted by the District Magistrate, which itself hadbeen prepared behind his back, therefore, both the petitions were allowed directing for reinstatement of the respondent employee with full back wages and all consequential benefits. Hence these two special appeals. We have heard Shn Manish Goel, learned Counsel for the appellants and Shri P N Saxena, learned Senior Advocate with Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava, for the respondent employee.
(3.) IT has been canvassed on behalf of the appellants that once a post isreserved for a particular category, it has to be filled up by the candidate belonging to the said category alone unless the Appointing Authority takes a decision otherwise in case of non-availability of a suitable candidate of reserved category. Obtaining an employment by misrepresentation or by filing false certificate amounts to usurpation of the right of the candidate belonging to that reserved category andsuch an employee does not have a right to hold the post. In the instant case, once the District Magistrate came to the conclusion that the said employee did not belong to the category of Scheduled Caste, the Disciplinary Authority is right in arriving at the conclusion that he had no right to hold the post and the termination order could not have been quashed by the learned Single Judge. On the contrary, Shri P. N. Saxena, learned Senior Counsel for the respondent employee has submitted that no finding of fact has been recorded by anyauthority, whosoever, to the effect that the said employee did not belong to Scheduled Caste. Only remarks have been made doubting as to whether he belongs to the caste of Shilpkar or Badhai. The report submitted by the District Magistrate, Gorakhpur, so heavily relied upon by the Corporation, merely expresses a doubt regarding the correctness of the certificate and there is no specific finding that the certificate had been obtained by misrepresentation or fraud or he did not belong to the Scheduled Caste. The Inquiry Officer committed an error in placing theonus to prove that the report of the District Magistrate was wrong, on the respondent employee though onus was on the Corporation to prove that the certificate ofcaste had been obtained by fraud and was false. The respondent employee hadbeen appointed in the year 1970. A period of 37 years has lapsed. He is at theverge of retirement. After the judgment of the learned Single Judge, he has been reinstated as there was no interim order by this Court in appeals. Therefore, the interest of justice requires no interference at such a belated stage.;