N.K.Jain, J. - (1.) THIS special appeal Under Section 18 of the Rajasthan High Court Ordinance, 1949 has been directed against the order of learned Single Judge of this Court dt. 26.3.1993 whereby the writ petition filed by the petitioner against his dismissal by the respondents has been dismissed.
(2.) BRIEF facts which are necessary for the disposal of this special appeal as alleged by the appellant petitioner are that he is a natural born son of Biharilal of Sr. Madhopur and tailor by caste. In pursuance of advertisement issued by the respondent Bank in the year 1983 the appellant applied vide Anx. 12 for the post of Cashier -cum -clerk alleging to be a member of Scheduled Caste along with a certificate issued by Tehsildar marked as Anx. 13. He was appointed on the said post on 13.2.1984 against Scheduled Caste quota. Notice to show cause was issued to the petitioner on a complaint to which the petitioner filed a reply stating that he was adopted by Bhanwarilal @ Biharilal Meena of Village Dantala when he was 10 years old by a formal document, which was written in Bahi on 2.4.82 and he got a certificate issued by the Tehsildar. On enquiry it was found that the fact has been falsely canvassed by the petitioner. The Enquiry Officer came to the conclusion that the petitioner -appellant obtained the certificate through unscrupulous means and by misrepresenting about belonging to Meena Tribe and nothing was produced regarding his adoption. This allegation that the adoption was recorded in the Bahi on 2.4.82 was not accepted. The certificate was not in the prescribed proforma and was also not issued by the District Magistrate. The respondent Bank dismissed the appellant from service. Against the order of dismissal the appellant filed a writ petition but the same was also dismissed. Hence, this special appeal. Mr. Mridul, learned Counsel for the appellant argued that the petitioner -appellant disclosed all facts regarding his natural father and mother and also submitted his higher secondary and other certificates. Therefore, merely on the basis of the certificate of Tehsildar it cannot be said that the appellant misrepresented and got appointment against Scheduled Caste quota by committing fraud. He has further submitted that the appellant was in bonafide belief that he had gone in adoption on the basis of certificate issued by the Tehsildar who gave it on the basis of record of Municipal Board, He placed reliance on the judgment of Apex Court reported in : (1993)IILLJ1159SC Dr. M.S. Mudhol and Ors. v. Shri S.D. Halegkar and Ors.
(3.) HEARD learned Counsel for the appellant and perused the impugned order as well as the case law.;