Punjab and Haryana High Court: In a petition filed under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India seeking to set aside the order dated 28-07-2017 according to which the petitioner was removed from service of Assistant Professor under the Self-Financing Scheme(‘SFS’), Jaishree Thakur, J., dismissed the petition as the petitioner was not entitled to benefit of SC category, being a person of Muslim religion.
Background
The petitioner was working as a Contractual Teaching Associate in Kurukshetra University. The University issued an advertisement for filling up of 5 posts of lecturers in which one was reserved for SC category in the department of Journalism and Mass Communication under (‘SFS’), while the rest were unreserved. The petitioner got selected under both categories- Budgeted as well as SFS, but joined as a lecturer (SC) under SFS scheme on a temporary basis, but the category was not mentioned in the appointment letter.
Based on a complaint alleging that the petitioner obtained job claiming to be SC category candidate while being a Muslim. The Deputy Commissioner denied any entry in the name of petitioner regarding issuance of SC certificate. Through Right to Information Act, 2005, the petitioner got to know that about dispatch numbers of certificates entered wrongly in the record register and later got the correct caste certificate Serial number. When the authenticity of such certificate was sought through the Deputy Commissioner, it was informed SC certificate cannot be issued to the petitioner as he belonged to Julaha caste and Muslim religion. Another committee was constituted which later proposed penalties against the petitioner and removed him from service. The same was challenged in the instant matter.
Court’s Analysis
The court pointed out that the petitioner was treated as the member of the SC category throughout the Selection process as the petitioner’s name did not find any mention in the list of selected general category candidates. The Court further said that “mentioning of category of reservation in the application form itself is an indication that the candidate is seeking benefit of reservation.”
The Court took note that the Petitioner did not belong to Hindu religion and said that “for a person to have the status of SC must profess Hinduism or any other religion as specified in para 3 of the Constitution (Scheduled Caste) Order, 1950. Therefore, the Court found that the petitioner being a person belonged to Muslim Community was not entitled to be issued an SC category certificate while relying on the Supreme Court’s judgment in Punjabrao v. Dr D.P. Meshram, (1965) 1 SCR 849
The Court said that the petitioner could not be given the benefit of Horizontal reservation as he was not able to prove that he had obtained more marks than the last selected candidate of the General category.
The Court relied on Bhilai Steel Plant v. Mahesh Kumar Gonnade, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 866 wherein, it was held that the person seeking employment on the basis of false certificate cannot be permitted to retain the benefit of wrongful appointment and explained that since the appointment of petitioner was based on SC certificate, he could not get benefit of length of the service of which he is not eligible at the first instance.
The Court held that even though the petitioner had not misrepresented at the time of obtaining an SC certificate or obtain the same fraudulently but was given benefit under the same, he cannot be allowed to continue in services. Thus, the instant petition was dismissed by the Court.
[Abid Ali v. State of Haryana, 2023 SCC OnLine P&H 626, Order Dated: 17-05-2023]
Advocates who appeared in this case :
For the Petitioner: Senior Advocate R.S. Bains, Advocate Mohan Singh Chauhan, Advocate Saurabh Bedi;
For the Respondents: Deputy Advocate General Anant Kataria, Advocate A.S. Virk;
For Applicants: Advocate Mohit Garg, Advocate Mohit Saini.
Buy Constitution of India HERE
