C i- \VD y^. IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHAmSGARH AT BILASPUR W.P.(S) N0. (o S- /2007 PETITIONER ><., w RESPONDENTS w^- ^^' ..-••• -^A--" ^ '?x_^'». S'^i'Ntao^S^I" a ':!^-,M.'. ^S.-^t ' g ^V^ ..••:%•'Al? ^."''^'"'"-aa-'.&' igt'^ ^ ff %^-3'< sy^.^y1 : ^, Dr. Ramkeshwar Singh, S/o. Shri Shankar Prasad, Aged about 43 years, R/o. Kondagaon, Bastar, Jagdalpur, District Bastar (CG) VERSUS ,,-1] State of Chhattisgarh, Through: Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department, D.K.S. Bhawan,Raipur, District Raipur (CG) A^^.- /2] XS' ..••"' ^•:^%-"" \-<^1'K^"7 ....--M^ Director, Health & Family Welfare, Chhattisgarh, Raipur, Purana Nurse Hostel, D.K.S. Premises, Raipur, District Raipur (CG) '•^SK.s—pys^'- ^,3] Chief Medical and Health Officer, Jagdalpur, Bastar, District Bastar (CG) ^4] Commissioner, Adimjati Tatha Anusuchit Jati Vikas, Ravishankar Vishwavidyalaya Parisar, Raipur, District Raipur (CG) , 5] Chhattisgarh Rajya Anusuchit Janjati Ayog, Raipur, Through: its Secretaiy, 61-Jalvihar Colony, Raipur, District Raipur (CG) /6] Joint Director, Caste Certificate High-Level Scrutiny Committee, Raipur District Raipur (CG) ,7] Dircctor, Adimjati Anusandhan Evum Prashikshan Sansthan, Pt. Ravishankar Shukla Vishwavidyalaya, Parisar, Raipur (CG) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA ^- HIGH COURT DF CHHATTISGARH AT BII^SPUR WRIT PETITION (S) No. 6554o!_2QQ7. PETITIONER : Dr. Ramkeshwar Singh. VERSUS RESPONDENTS : State of Chhattisgarh & Others. Present: Shri Manoj Paranjpe, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Shashank Thakur, Panel Lawyer for the tate/ respondents. AND WRIT PETITION No. 1538 of 2002 PETITIONER : R.S.Sinha.. VERSUS RESPONDENTS : State of Chhattisgarh & Others. PtesBnt: Shri Prashant Jaiswal, Senior Advocate with Shrl Shi:>!ittiii.iii:' Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Shashank Thakur, Panel Lawyer for the Stale/r&spi.iriclcrit No.1to6. Shri D.N.Prajapati, Advocate forthe respondent No. 7 •^-. WR\T PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTIOM :0t INDIA 8B: Hon'ble Shri Satish K. AanihotEi^J, ORDER(ORAL) (Passed on 07th day of September, 2010) Since both the above writ petitions arise from the samci cause of action and involve common facts and queSiioiT ul law, thus, they are being considered and decided by tliio common order. Challenge in Writ Petition (S) No. 6554 of 2007 is to ihc order dated 24.09.2007 (Annexure P/12) passed by llie High Power Caste Scrutiny Committee (for shoii 'tlH'. ..•.^tesu'a^ '^•'"K^,'"'^ .^ !i Committee') whereby it has been held that the petitionel has obtained government employment on the basis of falsp caste certificate and the respondent-authorities have beeii directed to cancel his appointment on the post of Assistanl Surgeon, with inlmediate effect. In Writ Petition No. 1S38 of 2002, there is no chgllenge fo any specific order but the petitioner prays for commandirl(.j the respondent authority by way of appropriate writ/oi-d6r lo ihitiate enquiry against the respondent No. 7, who ha;?; obtained government employment on the basis of lalse caste certificate. Shri Paranjpe, learned eounsel appearing for the petltJRnei in W.P.(S) No. 6554/2007, submits that the petitioner ts working as Incharge, Block Medical Officer and p&sted ,al Primary Health Centre, Kondagaon, Jagdalpur, Dfsiijct Bastar. Initially, he was appointed as Asslstant Surgeoji under the Other Backward Category (for short 'the OBC'), on 18.03.1991 after acquiring the degree of M.B.B.S. iiQni Jiwaji University, Gwalior in the year 1991. Shrl Paranjpe further su|3mits that though, the petitioner has secured the admission in M.B.B.S. course as a Scheduled Tribe (I'D) short 'the S. T.') category. Thereafter, the petitionei participated in the post graduate course wherein some! other candidates filed a writ petition claiming that the seal was reserved for ST candidate whereas the petitioner' do£", not belong to the same. The said petition, being ;r-'€"^ ^ :..^ •^ .^-- 6. Petitlon No. 2359/1990, was disposed of by a Dl\/lsion Bench of High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Bencli al Gwalior, vide order dated 05.02.1991 (Annexui-e P/7). observing that that the petitioner should not be denied t|-lia fruits of educatlon and it was further found that the petitioner does not bglong to ST categoi-y but jn fact, he belonged to OBC category. Later on, the petitiqher joinad the government servlce as an OBC category candidala However, on 20.04.2007 (Annexure P/9), the petitioner waa issued a riotice by the Committee with regard to verifltatiQii of his social status and thereafter, again 6n 19.07.2007 (Annexure P/11) another notice was issued and the petitioner was directed to appear before ttie CQrnn-iitteQ The petitioner filed his reply and appeared before th«> authoritles also. Vide the impugned orders datejl 24.09.2007 (Annexure P/12) and 16.10.2007 (Ann&xure P/13), the Committee held that since the petitlohar has secured MBBS degree on the basis of clalmlhg himself lo be a ST category candldate, thus, his appointment may bi:i cancelled. Thus, this petition. Shri Prashant Jaiswal, learned Senior Advocate appearing with Shri Shailendra Sharma, Advocate for the petitlonel' IIT (W.P. No. 1538/2002) submits that since the i-espondenl No. 7 [petitioner in W.P.(S) No. 6554/2007] who originally belongs to Kushwaha caste, has obtained MBBS degref! claiming himself to be a of "Gond" caste, under the 81 s^ '" f -^ ...y -^. 6. 7. category candidate and further, has obtained governin^ii) employment on the basis of that degree, the petltiorK'f made several cohlplaints to the authorlties for taking appropriate action, however, the respondent No 7 [petitioner in W.P.(S) No. 6554/2007] is still coritinujng vi/ilh the service. Thus, this petition. This Court, in a batch of matters v'a. Dinesh Kumai Bhagoria v. State of Chhattisgarh & Others , and othei connected matters, has considered similar issues wilh regard to verlfication of the social status of a candidate On perusal of the order dated 24.09.2007 (Annexure P/13 to W.P.(S) No. 6554/2007), it appears that the same is IK)| in accordance with the guidelines issued by the Supreme Court in a catena of decisions as referred in Dihesh Kiimai Bhagoria (supra), particularly in State of Mahardshtra v Milind and Director of Thbal Welfare, Governmenl: of Andhra Pradesh v. Laveti Giri & anothe^. Indisputably, the petitioner obtained admissian to M.B.B !? course at Jiwaji Medical College, Gwalior claiming himsell to be a ST category and has completed the course It is also evident from the fact that while entering into the government service, the petitioner has not claimed appointment against the reserved seat for ST candidale' However, he was admitted to government service agciinfsl ' W.P. (S)No. 3338 of 2007, decided on 19"' August, 2010 2 (2001) 1 SCC 4 3(1995)4SCC32 t s3 ^- OBC category, on the basis that the petitioner wgs fountl by learned Division Bench of the High Court df Madliya Pradesh that he belonged to OBC category THus, the finding of the Division Bench of the High Couri: of Madhya Pradesh cannot be set aside either by this Court or by t|le Committee. 9. Be that as it may, the identical question asto what would be the consequences if a candidate has obtainecj 1:1 professional degree on the basis of wrong certificate (;i| being a member of SC/ST/OBC category came Inlu consideration before the Supreme Court in Milind (suprs) and R.VIshwanatha Pillai v. State of Kerala . The SuprSnle Court further considered the ratio laid down 'm Mlliiul (supra) in the matter of Yogesh Ramchandra Naikwadl i/ State of Maharashtra & Others , and held as Linder: "7; We may therefore examine thQ facts of this case to decide whether the appellant should be given any benefit and if so whether they should be similar to relief granted in Milind wv'l Vishwanatha Pillai. As the caste clairrl Qf the appellant had been rejected by the SGrutlny Committee even before admisslon, this case stands on a different footing. But in this cgsi;! though the scrutiny committee had rejected the appellant's claim even prlor to his admission to the professional course, the Higli Court, by order dated 22.6.1995 haddireated the Director of Technical Education to accept the admission form of appellant wlthbut insisting upon the validation of caste and tcl process the same asif appellant belonged to Scheduled Tribe, making it clear thEfl admission if any made was provlsional, ancl if the appellant failed in his petition, he will not (2004) 2 SCC 105 2008 AIRSCW 2463 .^S'3%. yf""%-~\ il:'%3s;s, 1 "~"vs3' P ^.'%^,/ ^ 10. be entitled to the benefit of degree he msly obtain. As observed in Milind, ifthe appelliant's admission or degree is to be annulled, it is to nobody's benefit as his seat cannpt be offered to someone else. There is also no allegatioii that appellant forged or faked the caste certificate. His admission to engineeilng course was nearly thirteen years back and he secured the degree more than four years back. We are therefore of the view that Ihe appellant herein should be perrnitted to i-Btald the benefit of the degree but subject to terms. The first is that he shall not clairn or seek f3ny further benefit by claiming to bfelong to a scheduled Tribe. The second is that if the State has spent or incurred any expenditLire on the appellant's professional degref? education by extending the benefit bf exemption from payment of fee or award ot scholarship by extending the benefit of concession in fee (that is less than what is charged to general category studenls) by treating him as Scheduled Tribe candidate, tlie appellant cannot retain such financial benefits; The third Respondent may, on behalf of tlie State Government, take appropriate steps t(i enquire and assess the amount, if any spenl on the appellant either toward fee, scholarshlp or by way of concession in fee and make a demand onappellant for payment thereof. If the appellant fails to pay the amount so fouhd due within six months of the demand by the third Respondent, the third Respondent may take steps for recalling the degree granted lo the appellant. If no amount is found to be diif'i or if the amount determined and demandec) is paid by appellant, he may be permitted to retain the degree obtained by hirn." In the case on hand, since the petitioner has obtained MBBS degree on the basis of certificate clairning himself lo be a ST candidate, and thus, the State has incurred heavy expenditufe by granting exemption from payment of fpe and was also granted other benefits and privileges. The Supreme Courtjn categorical terms held that the benefil cit ^ ":;l'?5!^ ,?-^4 "•'*, ^^"'^^ '^s^-<*r . '-^^^•s^ »•• a professional degree can be granted to the candidate Qilly after treating hlm as a candidate of general Gategory ancl as such, he cannot retain such financial benefits. 11. Accordingly, the State Government is directed td take approprigte steps to enquire and assess the amount If ariy, spent on the petitionel' in his MBBS course. The petltipnei (in W.P.(S) No. 6554 of 2007) shall be liable to pay fee els charged to the general category students. The'reaftel', the petitioner would be entitled to claim servica beneflt aa general category candidate, and not under any othei category. 12, Since the petitioner was appointed on 18.03 1991 and has continUed till date, at this stage, the appointrtient pt the petitioner cannot be quashed. However, the State Is al liberty to take appropriate steps after ascertaining j-liid collecting the amount, if any, paid by the Government by way of eoncession in fee to the petitioner (in W.P.(8) No 6554 of 2007). It is further made clear that the petitionisi (in W.P.(S) No. 6554 of 2007) may not be entitled ta Ein^ beneflts, concession of reserved category of SC/ST| exisepl of OBC in future. The needful may be done by the Stalfii Government within a period ofthree months. 13. In view of the above, the impugned order dated 24.09 2U07 [Annexure P/12 toW.P.(S) No. 6654/2007] Is quashed: 14. Accordingly, both the writ petitions are disposed of. Sd/- Satish K-Agnihotri Judge V