IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN THURSDAY, THE 29TH JANUARY 2009 / 9TH MAGHA 1930 WP(C).No. 7721 of 2008(S) ------------------------- OA.210/2003 of CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL,ERNAKULAM BENCH .................... PETITIONERS: --------------- 1. INDIAN COUNCIL OF AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH, REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR GENERAL, KRISHI BHAVAN, NEW DELHI. 2. PRESIDENT, INDIAN COUNCIL OF AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH, KRISHI BHAVAN, NEW DELHI. 3. DEPUTY SECRETARY (P), INDIAN COUNCIL OF AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH, KRISHI BHAVAN, NEW DELHI. 4. DIRECTOR, CENTRAL PLANTATION CROPS RESEARCH INSTITUTE, KUDLU, KASARAGOD. 5. UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE, KRISHI BHAVAN, NEW DELHI. BY ADV. SRI.P.JACOB VARGHESE, SC, ICAR RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. DR.SUDHA SUKUMARAN, FORMER SCIENTIST (CPCRI), “SONFIYAD” TC 117/1117, THIRUMALA (PO), PANGODE, TRIVANDRUM. W.P.(C) No.7721/2008 2. CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, REP. BY ITS REGISTRAR, ERNAKULAM BENCH, KALOOR, COCHIN-682 017. 3. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, SCHEDULED CASTE AND SCHEDULED TRIBES DEPARTMENT, GOVT.SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-5. ADV. SRI.P.V.MOHANAN FOR R1 SRI.P.SANTHOSH KUMAR, SPL.G.P. FOR R2. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 29/01/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C) No.7721/2008 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXTS: EXT.P1: COPY OF LETTERNO.1(7)/82/ARS 11 DT.18.1.1982 ISSUED BY ASRB. EXT.P2: COPY OF LETTER NO.591/1982-ASRI DT.28.8.2000 ISSUED BY ASRB. EXT.P3: COPY OF STATEMENT DT.30.11.2000 BEFORE THE VIGILANCE OFFICER KIRTADS. EXT.P4: COPY OF STATEMENT DT.30.11.2000 BEFORE THE VIGILANCE OFFICER KIRTADS. EXT.P5: COPY OF JUDGMENT DT.13.12.2002 IN M.F.A.NO.664/2002 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT. EXT.P6: COPY OF O.A.NO.210/2003 ALONG WITH ANNEXURES. EXT.P7: COPY OF REPLY STATEMENT FILED BY THE PETITIONERS IN O.A.NO.210/2003 BEFORE THE CAT, ERNAKULAM BENCH. EXT.P8: COPY OF ORDER DT.24.2.2005 IN O.A.NO.210/2003 OF CAT, ERNAKULAM BENCH. EXT.P9: COPY OF ORDER IN W.P.(C0 no.14943/2007 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT. EXT.P10: COPY OF FRONT PAGE OF SSLC BOOK OF 1ST RESPONDENT. EXT.P11: COPY OF LETTER NO.591/1982-ARS-1 DT.29.8.2000 BY ASRB. EXT.P12: COPY OF NOTIFICATION OF ARS EXAMINATION 1982 AND CRITERIA ADOPTED FOR CALLING THE CANDIDATES. EXT.P13: COPY OF LETTER DT.19.12.2002 BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE SECRETARY, ICAR EXT.P14: COPY OF LETTER DT.23.12.2002 BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE SECRETARY, ASRB. EXT.P15: CERTIFIED COPY OF JUDGMENT DT.18.12.2007 IN O.A.NO.210/2003 OF CAT, ERNAKULAM BENCH. EXT.P16: AMENDMENT LETTER NO.8-2/80 PER-IV DT.14.07.1981 BY THE ICAR. W.P.(C) No.7721/2008 EXT.P17: FIRST RECRUITMENT RULES FRAMED BY ICAR IN 1977 PAGES 30-32 EXT.P18: RELEVANT PAGES OF RECRUITMENT RULES 1985 OF ICAR 1985 PAGES 19-21. EXT.P19: RELEVANT PAGES OF RECRUITMENT RULES 1985 OF ICAR 2005 PAGE 19-21. RESPONDENT'S EXTS: EXT.R1(A): COPY OF THE REJOINDER ALONG WITH ANNEXURE A15 TO A20. //TRUE COPY// PA TO JUDGE K. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ. ---------------------------------------- W.P.(C). No. 7721 OF 2008 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 29th day of January, 2009 J U D G M E N T ~~~~~~~~~~~ Balakrishnan Nair, J. The respondents 1 to 4 and 6th respondent in O.A.No.210/2003 before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Ernakulam Bench, are the writ petitioners. The 1st respondent herein was the applicant. 2. The 1st respondent filed the Original Application, a copy of which is produced as Ext.P6, challenging Annexure A-15 order. By Annexure-A15, she has been terminated from the services of the Indian Council of Agricultural Research (ICAR). The said order was passed on the finding that she does not belong to the Scheduled Caste Hindu 'Paravan' community and she got employment based on her claim that she was a member of that community. 3. It is common case that the 1st respondent was a Muslim. She married Dr.Sukumaran in 1969 and converted to W.P.(C) No.7721/2008 2 Hinduism in 1981. She got appointment as Scientist in the ICAR, pursuant to the selection made by the Agricultural Scientists Recruitment Board (ASRB). The selection mainly consisted of a written test. Ext.P1 is the list of candidates, who cleared the test. The 1st respondent finds a place in Ext.P1, under the subject Nematology, as the 2nd candidate (Her caste is shown as Scheduled Caste). Ext.P1 would show that she applied for selection as a member of the Scheduled Caste. Pursuant to that, the ICAR issued Annexure A2 order dated 24.6.1983, offering appointment to her. She accepted the appointment and she was given a posting at Central Plantation Crops Research Institute, Kudlu, Kasargod, by Annexure-A3 order dated 29.12.1983 with effect from 28.6.1983. She was promoted as Scientist (Senior Scale) with effect from 28.6.1991 . 4. While so, complaints were raised against the caste status of the 1st respondent. The competent authority authorised the Vigilance Officer of the KIRTADS to enquire into her caste status. The KIRTADS reported that her claim that she belongs to Scheduled Caste is unsustainable. Based on the said report, the Scrutiny Committee under the Kerala (Scheduled Castes and W.P.(C) No.7721/2008 3 Scheduled Tribes) Regulation of Issue of Community Certificates Act (Act 11 of 1996), by proceedings dated 28.5.2002 held that the 1st respondent does not belong to the Scheduled Caste Hindu 'Paravan' community. The Government of Kerala accepted the said decision and passed consequential orders on 21.6.2002, stating that she cannot be treated as a member of Hindu 'Paravan' community and all scheduled caste certificates issued to her shall be treated as cancelled. The said order also further directed that the 1st respondent should be terminated from service. 5. Though the 1st respondent challenged the decision of the Scrutiny Committee before this Court, by filing M.F.A.No.664/2002, the same was dismissed by Ext.P5 judgment. The pleadings in the Miscellaneous First Appeal would show that she claimed that she belonged to Hindu 'Paravan' community by virtue of her marriage to Dr.Sukumaran, her husband, who is a member of that community. The pleadings in that M.F.A. would also show that she got employment because of her caste status as Scheduled Caste. That is evident from Ext.P5 judgment dated 13.12.2002. W.P.(C) No.7721/2008 4 Based on the finding of the Scrutiny Committee and the order of the Government of Kerala, the 1st respondent was terminated from the service of the ICAR by order dated 3.3.2003. The 1st respondent challenged that order before the C.A.T. by filing O.A.No.210/2003. A copy of the O.A. is Ext.P6. Ext.P7 is the reply filed by the writ petitioners before the C.A.T. After hearing both sides, the O.A. was allowed by Ext.P8 order dated 24.2.2005. The petitioners challenged Ext.P8 before this Court, by filing W.P.(C) No. 14943/2005. The said writ petition was allowed by Ext.P9 judgment and the O.A. was remitted for fresh disposal in accordance with law. 6. During the early stage of the proceedings, both sides claimed that the 1st respondent was appointed in the quota reserved for Scheduled Caste. But, later, it has come out from the materials on record that there was no reservation for Scheduled Caste for the selection made by the ASRB. But, members of the scheduled caste were given some age relaxation. It is common case that she was over aged at the time of the examination. According to the writ petitioners, she got relaxation as a member of the scheduled caste. But, the 1st respondent contended that there was a general age relaxation W.P.(C) No.7721/2008 5 for the first two examinations held by the ASRB, after the 1981 amendment introduced to the ICAR Rules. But, the petitioners contended that the relaxation for the first two examinations in the matter of age limit for all the candidates was available only for the first two examinations held after the introduction of the Rules in 1975. Upon remand by this Court, the C.A.T. mainly considered the said point. The C.A.T. again found in favour of the appellant, as per Ext.P15 order. It was held that for the 1982 examination, in which the 1st respondent participated, there was a general relaxation of age limit and the 1st respondent was a beneficiary of that relaxation. Based on that finding, the O.A. was allowed and the impugned order Annexure-A15 was set aside. 7. The aggrieved writ petitioners challenge the said finding of the C.A.T. on various grounds. They pointed out that Annexure-A16 notification does not mention about any general age relaxation. The conditions attached to that notification, a copy of which is produced as Ext.P12, also do not mention about any general age relaxation. It only says that the members of the scheduled caste along with certain other specified categories are W.P.(C) No.7721/2008 6 eligible for age relaxation upto five years. The age limit for general candidates was 30 and those belonging to Scheduled Caste was 35. Admittedly, at the time when the examination was held in 1982, 1st respondent had crossed the age of 34. She got age relaxation only based on her caste status, it is submitted by the writ petitioners. In support of that submission, the I.C.A.R. relied on the 1st respondent's caste shown in Ext.P1 list. They also relied on Ext.P3 representation filed by the 1st respondent before the Vigilance Officer, KIRTADS. The same would show that she was claiming the caste of her husband. Ext.P4 is the representation submitted by her husband before the Vigilance Officer, KIRTADS. The same would also show that he claimed that his wife belonged to his caste. The petitioners also relied on Ext.P5 judgment wherein it is stated as follows: “Further it is an admitted fact that the appellant has obtained a job against a vacancy reserved for scheduled caste”. 8. Since the learned counsel for the 1st respondent raised certain disputes regarding the correctness of the above statement in the judgment, we called for the judge's papers of W.P.(C) No.7721/2008 7 the said M.F.A. On verification, it was found that the 1st respondent herein has specifically made a pleading that she got employment under the Scheduled Caste quota. The writ petitioners also relied on the letter of the 1st respondent, Ext.P13, wherein she has stated as follows: “Since 1970 the year of obtaining postgraduate degree, I had been trying for more than twelve years to get some job under State Government under OBC quota, attended several interviews, but could not succeed as I was unable to prove to be a candidate coming under OBC because I was expelled from Islam (Muslim community). But this time, I had become over aged to secure a job under OBC/General quota. During 1982, by explaining all my background history, I requested ASRB to kindly grant age relaxation and permit me to write the ARS examination. My humble request for age relaxation was sympathetically considered and I was allowed to write the ARS examination in 1982 in Nematology by sending the hall ticket. Later I was called for the oral interview at the ASRB headquarters, New Delhi. The following certificates/documents in original were produced at the time of interview which were critically verified by the ASRB officials.” W.P.(C) No.7721/2008 8 9. The above statement contains an admission from her part that her humble request for age relaxation was sympathetically considered and allowed by the ICAR. Finally, it was pointed out that the rules relied on by the Tribunal to find that there was relaxation available in 1982 also, are the rules contained in a compilation published by the Administrative Officer of National Academy of Agricultural Research Management, Hyderabad. The said publication does not correctly reflect the rule position. In the said publication, it was wrongly shown that relaxation was available for two examinations after the amendment introduced to the rule in 1981 also. This is not a publication authenticated by the ICAR, it is submitted. 10. In view of the above position, it is submitted that the 1st respondent got age relaxation as a member of scheduled caste and got employment. In view of the subsequent developments, the ICAR was constrained to terminate her from service. So, the order of the CAT is unsustainable in law, it is submitted. W.P.(C) No.7721/2008 9 11. The learned counsel for the 1st respondent mainly relied on the rules contained in the publication made by National Academy of Agricultural Research Management, Hyderabad . In view of the rules contained therein, there was relaxation of age limit to all the candidates, irrespective of their community for the 1982 examination. So, even if, the 1st respondent claimed that she belongs to the caste of her husband, her selection was not based on that caste status, it is submitted. It is also submitted that the selection was not against any reserved post also. In any view of the matter, it is submitted that a sympathetic view may be taken and equity demands that her termination at this distance of time may be avoided. What has been relaxed is only age limit and not any norms regarding selection. She cleared the written examination like any other candidate and got appointment. There is no question of any scheduled caste now being appointed in her place. So, she may not be terminated, it is submitted. 12. As noticed earlier, the 1st respondent claimed that by her marriage she became a member of her husband's community and therefore, she is a member of the scheduled caste 'Paravan'. W.P.(C) No.7721/2008 10 Both sides proceeded on the footing that she was appointed under the scheduled caste quota and she was eligible for the same. But, in fact, the subsequent materials produced, as mentioned earlier, would show that she was given only age relaxation available to a member of the scheduled caste. The plea that, at the relevant time, there was no age limit for all the candidates is a new point developed by the 1st respondent, while the matter was pending before the C.A.T. 13. From the Rules, which the ICAR produced, we notice that the age relaxation for two examinations for all candidates was available only for the first two examinations held after the introduction of the Rules in 1975. The said relaxation was not available to the examination held in 1982, in which the 1st respondent participated. Admittedly, at the relevant time, she was over aged also. So, she could take the examination only as a candidate belonging to the scheduled caste. The copy of the Rules relied on by the 1st respondent is not the correct copy of the Rules. So, in view of the findings of the Scrutiny Committee, which has become final, with the dismissal of the M.F.A., she cannot be allowed to enjoy any benefit she obtained as a member W.P.(C) No.7721/2008 11 of the scheduled caste. Therefore, she is liable to be terminated from service. 14. We feel that equitable consideration, for which the learned counsel for the 1st respondent made a fervent plea cannot be allowed. The 1st respondent made a false claim regarding her caste status and obtained appointment . Going by the principles laid down by the Apex court in Viswanatha Pillai v. State of Kerala [AIR 2004 SC 1469], we feel that the 1st respondent is not entitled to get any equitable relief. In the result, the writ petition is allowed. Ext.P15 is set aside and O.A.No.210/2003 is dismissed. (K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, JUDGE) (K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JUDGE) ps