RAMESH GAUR Vs. MAHANIDESHAK KARAGAR PRASHASAN EVAM SUDHAR SEVAEN U P LUCKNOW
LAWS(ALL)-2008-7-20
HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Decided on July 21,2008

RAMESH GAUR Appellant
VERSUS
MAHANIDESHAK, KARAGAR PRASHASAN EVAM SUDHAR SEVAEN, U. P., LUCKNOW Respondents

JUDGEMENT

Ashok Bhushan, Arun Tandon - (1.) SRI B. L. Yadav, learned counsel for appellant and learned standing counsel for the respondents.
(2.) THIS special appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order passed by the learned single Judge dated 29th April, 2008 dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellant. The writ petition was directed against the order passed by the Senior Superintendent, Divisional/District Jail, Gorakhpur dated 9th April, 2008 terminating/ cancelling the appointment of the appellant as Bandi Rakshak. Brief facts necessary for deciding the special appeal are that in response to the advertisement dated 14th May, 2003, for filling up the backlog vacancies belonging to the Scheduled Caste category, petitioner-appellant made an application claiming himself to be a member of Scheduled Caste category. On the basis of caste certificate submitted by the appellant, he was selected as Bandi Rakshak on 31st July, 2003. The caste certificates, which were submitted by the appellant and other selected candidates were sent for verification to the respective districts and Tehsils from where such caste certificates were obtained. Report was submitted by the Tehsildar Sadar, Gorakhpur on 7th January, 2008 to the effect that the caste certificate submitted by the petitioner was never issued by the Tehsil-authority. Thereafter a show-cause notice dated 15th January, 2006 was issued to the petitioner calling for his explanation. The appellant submitted his reply stating that the caste certificate was issued by the Tehsildar concerned on 4th July, 1989, therefore, re-verification be made. The papers were again forwarded to the Tehsildar concerned for re-verification, he submitted his report on 7th March, 2008 recording that such certificate (as claimed by the appellant) was never issued by his office on 4th July, 1989. Thereafter appellant was called for personally on 7th April, 2008. Not being satisfied with the reply submitted by the appellant qua the validity of the caste certificate dated 4th July, 1989, the Senior Superintendent, Divisional/District Jail, Gorakhpur vide order dated 9th April, 2008 has cancelled the appointment of the petitioner-appellant. This order was challenged before this Court by means of Writ Petition No. 21499 of 2008. The learned single Judge has recorded that the appellant having failed to prove that he belongs to Scheduled Caste category and since the caste certificate submitted by the petitioner was found forged, nor error has been committed in cancelling the appointment of the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner-appellant questioning the order of Hon'ble single Judge contends that State Government has issued a notification dated 31st March, 1986, in which caste 'Gond' is included in the list of Scheduled Caste. On the strength of said notification, the appellant was issued the caste certificate. He further contends that procedure for cancelling the caste certificate has not been followed. He has placed reliance upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Kumari Madhuri Patil and another v. Additional Commissioner, Tribal Development and others, (1994) 6 SCC 241.
(3.) WE have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the records. It is not in dispute that the caste certificate which was submitted by the petitioner-appellant for his being a Scheduled Caste category candidate dated 4th July, 1989, (brought on record as Annexure-1 to the writ petition), has not been verified by the Tehsildar, Sadar, Gorakhpur. His report records that no such certificate was ever issued by the Tehsil-authority in favour of the appellant. After receiving the report, an opportunity was afforded to the petitioner to prove that the caste certificate submitted by him was genuine. Petitioner could not prove the authenticity of such certificate. The respondents, therefore, did not commit any error in coming to the conclusion that the certificate submitted by the appellant was forged and hence rightly set aside his selection/appointment.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.