CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR FCI AND ORS. versus JAGDISH BALARAM BAHIRA AND ORS.
[2017] 11 S.C.R. 271, Supreme Court of India, 2017
Outcome: Disposed off
Segment: Ratio
352 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(2017] ll S.C.R. 
A 
There shall be no order as to costs. 
B 
c 
7 Suresh Slo.Dewaji Vairagadc Vs. The Controller General, 
Indian Bureau of Mines. Indira Bhavan. Civil Lines, Nagpur & 
r\nr.4tt ... : 
The appellant was appointed as an Assistant Store Keeper on a 
post reserved for the Scheduled Tribes on 14 November 1988 on the 
strength of a caste certificate dated 14 January 1985 slating that he 
bdongs to the H~lba Schedule Tribe. The Scrutiny Committee by its 
order dated 30 August 2005 invalidated the caste claim of the appellant. 
Subsequently the respondent terminated the services of the appellant in 
pursuance of the proviso to Sub Ruic 1 of Ruic 5 of the Central Services 
(Temporary Services) Rules, 1965. Being aggrieved. the appellant filed 
a writ petition which was dismissed by the High Com1 by its order dated 
3 August 2009. 
Having due regard for the reasons contained in the body of this 
D 
judgment, we find no error in the judgment of the High Court. The Civil 
Appeal shall stand dismissed. No other submission is urged. 
E 
F 
G 
H 
There shall be no order as to costs. 
8 Rajcndra S/o. Ramaji Mahisbadwc Vs. The Joint 
Commissioner and Vice-Chairman Scheduled Tribe, Caste 
Ccrtificak Scrutinv Committee & Anr" : 
The appellant was appointed as a trainee technician in Air India 
on a post reserved for the Scheduled Tribes on 6 August 1 997 on the 
basis of a caste certificate dated 9 August 1988 stating that he belongs 
to the Halba
Schedule Tribe. Thereafter the appointment of the appellant 
was confirmed on 1 March 1999. The second respondent sought a 
clarification from Tehsildar, Nagpur to ascertain whether the caste 
certificate is genuine or not. The Tchsildar by a letter dated 17 October 
2008 stated that the name of the appellant is not borne in the records. 
Accordingly the second respondent terminated the services of the 
appellant by an order dated 3 November 2009. The Scrutiny Committee 
by its order dated 5 October 2012 invalidated the caste claim of the 
appellant. 
"I Civil Appeal No.1918 of 20 I 0) 
"tCiviJ Appeal No. 9154 of2015)
CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR FCI v. JAGDISH 
353 
BALARAM BAHIRA [DR. D. Y. CHANDRACHUD, J.] 
The High Court by its j udgmcnt dated I I March 2013 has declined 
A 
to grant protection to the services of the appellant upon the invalidation 
of his claim to belong to the Halba Scheduled Tribe by the Scrutiny 
Committee on 5 October 2012. There is a clear and patent misuse of 
process by the Appellant. In the abscnceofthe caste validity certificate, 
the appointment of the Appellant cannot be held to have attained finality. 
Having due regard to the reasons contained in the body of this judgment, 
we find no error in the judgment of the High Cowt. The Civil Appeal 
shall stand dismissed. No other submission is urged. 
There shall be no order as to costs. 
B 
9 Chhava d/o.Yadaorao Barapatrc {a) Chhaya W/o. Rajccv c 
Dhakatc Vs. The State of Maharashtra & Ors.50 : 
The appellant was appointed as a Junior Lecturer in the fourth 
respondent High School on a post reserved for the Scheduled Tribes on 
2 July 1991 on the basis of a caste certificate dated 23 July 1984 stating 
that she belongs to the Halba Schedule Tribe. On 14 March 1997 the 
D 
appellant's appointment as a Junior Lecturer was confirmed by the fourth 
respondent. The Scrutiny Committee invalidated the caste claim of the 
appellant by its order dated 8 Novem9cr 2012. The High Court by its 
impugned judgment and order dated 5 April 2013 has declined to grant 
protection of services. The appellant preferred a review
which was 
dismissed by the High Court by its order dated 10 May 2013. For the 
E · 
reasons contained in the body of the judgment and having due regard to 
the invalidation of the claim of the respondent by the Scrutiny Committee, 
we find no error in the judgment of the High Court. The Civil Appeals 
arc accordingly dismissed. 
There shall be no order as to costs. 
10 Ravindra Govindrao NagpurkarVs. Sccrctarv, Rajasthan 
Education Society \Vashim & Ors." : 
The appellant was appointed as a Lecturer on a post reserved for 
the Scheduled Tribes on .14 August 1995 on the basis of a caste certificate 
dated 13 May 1982 stating that he belongs to the Halba Scheduled Tribe. 
The caste claim of the appellant was invalidated by the Scrutiny 
Committee by its order dated 18 January 2005. Thereafter the appellant 
"(CivilAppcal Nos. 9158-59 of2015) 
"(Civil Appeal Nos.8604-05/17@ SLP (C) Nos. 33864-65 of 2015) 
F 
G 
H
354 
A 
B 
c 
D 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2017] l l S.C.R. 
was issued a show cause notice dated 3 January 2006 by the first 
respondent to explain why his services should not be terminated. On 16 
January 2006 the appellant filed a writ petition and challenged the show 
cause notice. However. on the same day the first respondent had already 
issued an order of termination. Thereafter the High Court granted 
permission to withdraw the writ petition and liberty was granted to tile 
proceedings before the appropriate forum. The appellant preferred an 
appeal before the University & College Tribunal. Nagpur which was 
dismissed by the tribwrnl by its order dated 30 December 2012. The 
High Court by its impugned judgment and order dated 18.3.2013 has 
declined to grant protection of services. The Review Petition was also 
dismissed on 29 November 2013. 
For the reasons contained in the body of the judgment and having 
due regard to the invalidation of the claim of the respondent by the Scrutiny 
Committee, we find no error in the judgment of the High Court. The 
Civil Appeals are accordingly dismissed. 
There shall be no order as to costs. 
11 Shri Shivaji Education Society & Anr. Vs. State of 
Maharashtra & Ors.": 
The third respondent was appointed as an Assistant Tcachc.r on a 
E 
post reserved for the Scheduled Tribes on the basis of a caste certificate 
showing him as belonging to the Thakur Scheduled Tribe. By its order 
dated 23 April 2008 the Scrutiny Committee
invalidated the tribe claim 
and confiscated his certificate. The services of the third respondent were 
terminated on 12 May 2008. While dismissing the writ petition challenging 
the order of the Scrutiny Committee the High Court by its order dated 
F 
15 December 2015 has none the less directed reinstatement of the third 
respondent subject to an undertaking that he would not claim the benefit 
of belonging to the Scheduled Tribe in future. Once the tribe claim of the 
respondent has been held to be false, the judgment of the High Court is 
unsustainable for the reasons indicated in the body of this judgment. The 
G 
Civil Appeal is accordingly allowed and the judgment and order of the 
High Court dated 15 December 2015 is set aside. In consequence the 
Writ Petition filed by the third respondent shall stand dismissed. 
There shall be no order as to costs. 
H 
"(Civil Appeal No.8601117@ SLP (C) No. 289 of 2016)
CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR FCI v. JAGDISH 
355 
BALARAM BAHIRA [DR. D. Y. CHANDRACHUD, J.] 
12 Hindustan Aeronautics Limited Vs. Murlidhar Arjun 
A 
Ncwarc and Anr.": 
The respondent was appointed on the post of Assistant Engineer 
(Grade-I) reserved for the Scheduled Tribes on 11 March 1992 on the 
strength ofa caste ce1tificatc stating that he belongs to the Gondgowari 
tribe. The Scrutiny Committee initially by an order dated 23 June 2004 
rejected the tribe claim. Subsequently in pursuance of order of remand 
passed by the High Cmut, the Scrutiny Committee investigated into the 
matter again and invalidated the tribe claim by its order dated 2 January 
2006 and ordered the tribe certificate to be cancelled. The High Court 
dismissed the Writ Petition filed by the respondent on 10 November 
2006 and the review petition was also dismissed for want of prosecution 
on 5 April 2006. However, subsequently the review petition, after 
restoration, was allowed on 30 January 2015 and while the cancellation 
of the caste certificate was upheld protection to the services of the 
respondent was granted. 
B 
c 
For the reasons contained in the body of the judgment and having 
D 
due regard to the fact that the claim of the respondent has been found to 
be false, we find merit in the appeals which have been filed by the 
appellant. The impugned judgments of the High Court dated 30 January 
2015 arc accordingly set aside. The writ proceedings filed by the 
respondent shall, in the
circun1stances, stand dismissed. The Civil Appeals 
arc allowed in these terms. No other submission is nrgcd. 
There shall be no order as to costs. 
13 India Trade Promotion Organisation Vs. Vivckkumar 
Lajjashankar Chaurasiya": 
E 
The Scrutiny Committee by its order dated 30 March 2013 has 
F 
found that the respondent docs not belong to the Nagawanshi tribe. The 
respondent was appointed on a post reserved for the Scheduled Tribes 
on the strength of a certificate that he belongs to the Nagawanshi tribe. 
The Division Bench of the High Court, placing reliance on the judgment 
of the Full Bench in Arnn Sononc's case (supra), has by its judgment 
G 
dated 16 February 2015 granted reinstatement to the respondent. 
For the reasons contained in the body of the judgment, the appeal 
filed by the employer shall have to be allowed and is accordingly allowed. 
"(C.A. Nos. 8602-03/17@SLP (CJ Nos.529-30 of2016) 
,., (C.A.No.8607117@ SLP @No.14830 of 2015) 
H
356 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2017] 11 S.C.R. 
A 
The impugned judgment of the High Coundated 16 February 2015 is set 
aside. No other submission is urged. 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
There shall be no order as to costs. 
14 Mumbai Metropolitan Region Development Authority 
Vs. Rajendra Ramchandra Dhakate & . .\nr.'' : 
The claim of the respondent to belong to the Halba Scheduled 
Tribe has been invalidated by the Scrutiny Committee by its order dated 
30 July 1998. The Scrutiny Committee has found that the documents 
submitted by the first respondent were manipulated and fabricated. The 
respondent was appointed to a post reserved for the Scheduled Tribes 
on the basis of a caste ce11ificatc stating that he belongs to the Halba 
Scheduled Tribe. The termination of the services the respondent has 
followed upon the cancellation of the caste certificate. 
In the circumstances and for the reasons contained in the body of 
the judgment. the High Cowt erred in allowing the writ petition filed by 
the respondent and directing the appellant to reinstate him. The Civil 
Appeal is accordingly allowed by setting aside the impugned judgment 
and order of the High Court dated 20 January 2015. The writ petition 
filed by the respondent shall. in the circumstances. stand dismissed. 
There shall be no order as to costs. 
15 State of Maharashtra Vs.Vasant, s/o.Gyundco Gonnade"': 
The respondent was appointed on the post ofJw1ior Engineer on 
2 I July 1982 on the basis of a claim of belonging to the
"'Halba Koshti'" 
Scheduled Tribe. The Scrutiny Committee invalidated his claim on 19 
August 1985. In the meantime. the Maharashtra Public Service 
Commission recommended the respondent for appointment in the cadre 
ofAssistant Engineer in 1984 and 1986 but he was not granted placement. 
The respondent filed a writ petition to challenge the order of the Scrutiny 
Committee dated 19 August I 985 which was dismissed by the High 
Court on 4 July 1986. Thereafter the respondent filed an appeal (Caste 
G 
Appeal) 11/ 1986-87 before the Divisional Commissioner. Nagpur against 
the order of the Scrutiny Committee. The appeal was disposed of on 23 
August 1985 by remanding the proceedings back to the Scrutiny 
Committee. On remand, the Scrutiny Committee, by its order dated 28 
H 
''(Civil Appeal 8609;17@ SLP (CJ No.13409 of 2015) 
"!Civil Appeal 8606/l 7@ S.L.P.(C)No. 19992 of 2015)
CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR FCI v. JAGDISH 
357 
BALARAM BAHIRA [DR. D. Y. CHANDRACHUD, J.] 
August 1989 found that the respondent docs not belong to the Scheduled 
A 
Tribe and cancelled his caste certi fie ate. The respondent filed an appeal 
before the Additional Divisional Commissioner. Nagpur which was 
dismissed on 12 November 1990. The respondent filed a writ petition 
challenging the invalidation of his caste claim and to seek relief in respect 
of his service conditions. By an order dated 23 March 1995 the writ 
petition was allowed by holding that the respondent belongs to the Halba 
Koshti caste but that was made subject to the decision in Milind (supra). 
The respondent was granted placement in the seniority of Assistant 
Engineer with effect from 29 July 1987. subject to the final outcome of 
the proceedings in Milind (supra). On 18 October 1995 the respondent 
was appointed as Assistant Executive Engineer subject to the decision 
in Milind (supra) and he joined on 4 December 1995. On 4 October 
B 
c 
l 999 the respondent was promoted to the post of Executive Engineer 
subject to the final disposal of the proceedings before this Court in Milind 
(supra). It was directed that the seniority would be fixed after the final 
decision of this Court. On 15 September 2000 the respondent was given 
D 
a deemed date of 29 May 1987. On 15 April 2005, considering the 
judgment of this Court in Milind (supra), the appointment of the 
rcspomlent to the post of Assistant
Executive Engineer was protected 
and he was regularized on the post considering it as an open category 
post. His seniority was directed to be fixed from the date of appointment 
and it was ordered that he shall not get the benefit of belonging to a 
Scheduled Tribe. On 6 August 2005 the earlier deemed date of29 May 
1987 was modified and his seniority on the post of Assistant Executive 
Engineer was fixed from 4 December 1995. On 5 June 2006 a G.R. was 
issued by which the deemed date was modified to 29 May 1987 on the 
post of Assistant Executive Engineer for the purpose of seniority. On I 
August 2009 a GR. was issued by which the deemed date for the purpose 
of seniority on the post of Executive Engineer was set as 29 May 199 l 
subject to approval of the M.P.S.C. On 28 April 2014 the State 
Government published a seniority list from I January 2011 to 13 
December 2013 for Executive Engineer. 
The respondent who was aggrieved by the GR. dated 28 April 
2014 filed a writ petition before the High Court at its Nagpur Bench 
praying for an appropriate writ for the declaration of the date of his 
seniority. The High Court by its judgment dated 27 Febrnary 2015 has 
E 
F 
G 
H
358 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2017] I l S.C.R. 
adverted to the decision in A run Son one and has come to the conclusion 
that the G.R. dated 6 August 2005 is not sustainable and the state 
government has been directed to give effect to its G.R.s dated 15 
September 2000 and 15 April 2005 by placing the respondent in the 
cadre of Assistant Engineer with effect from 29 May 1987. 
From a re11ding of the judgment of the High Court, it is clear that 
the primary consideration which weighed with it was the decision of its 
Full Bench in A run Sononc. In view of the reasons contained in the 
body of this judgment, this basis of the impugned decision of the High 
Court is erroneous. The Respondent does not belong to the Halba 
Schcdukd Tribe. It is also clear that the benefits obtained by the 
Respondent were subject to the decision in Milind. In Milind, this Com1 
has held that Halba - Koshti is not a Scheduled Tribe. the relevant 
entry in the Scheduled Tribes Order 1950 being 'Halba. Halbi'. 
We accordingly allow the Civil Appeal and set aside the impugned 
judgment dated 27 February 2015. 
There shall be no order as to costs. 
16 State of Maharashtra Vs.Ku.Yijaya Dcorao Nandanwar 
& Anr.57 : 
The claim of the respondent of belonging to the Halba Scheduled 
Tribe has been invalidated by the Scrutiny Committee by its order dated 
7 November 2009. The respondent was appointed as an Assistant Teacher 
on a post reserved for the Scheduled Tribes. Following
the invalidation 
of the claim, the services of the respondent were terminated. The High 
Court by its impugned order dated 5 July 2013 set aside the order of 
termination and granted protection to the service of the respondent. 
For the reasons contained in the body of the judgment, the 
impugned order of the High Court is unsustainable and is accordingly set 
aside. The writ petition filed by the respondent shall, in the circumstances, 
stand dismissed. The Civil Appeal is allowed in these terms. No other 
submission lrns been urged. 
There shall be no order as to costs. 
I 7 Ishwar Shrawan Nikharc Vs.State of Maharashtra & 
Ors." : 
"(C. A. No.9107 of2015) 
"(Civil Appeal No.7187 of2013)
CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR FCI v. JAGDISH 
359 
BALARAM BAHIRA [DR. D. Y. CHANDRACHUD, J.] 
The appellant wits appointed as an Assistant Teacher in a vacancy 
A 
reserved for the Scheduled Tribes on 30 January 1999. The Caste Scrutiny 
Committee invalidated the claim of the appellant on l July 2008. The 
Division Bench of the High Court, by its order dated 30 January 2009 
allowed the request for the withdrawal of the writ petition filed by the 
appellant keeping open the validity of the observations made by the 
B 
Scrutiny Committee whereby prosecution was ordered. The services of 
the appellant were terminated on 8 February 2009. The appellant filed 
an appeal before the School Tribunal which was dismissed on 19 October 
2011 on the ground that the appointment of the appellant was not a valid 
appointment in the eye of law. The learned Single Judge dismissed the 
writ petition challenging the order of the Tribunal.A Letters Patent Appeal 
C 
has been dismissed by the Division Bench by its judgment dated 7 May 
2012. Having regard to the fact that the claim of the appellant to belong 
to a Scheduled Tribe was invalidated by the Scrutiny Committee, the 
School Tribunal cannot be faulted in declining to entertain the appeal 
against the consequential order of termination of service. Moreover, for 
D 
the reasons contained in the body of the present judgment, we find no 
merit in the Civil Appeal. The Civil Appeal is accordingly dismissed. No 
other submission has been
urged. 
There shall be no order as to costs. 
18 Eknath Barikrao Dhanwadc Vs.Divisional Controller, 
E 
State Transport Corporation & Anr.59 : 
The appellant was appointed as a driver in 1999 with the 
respondent on a post reserved for Scheduled Tribes on the basis of a 
caste ce11ificate that he belongs to the Mahadeo Koli tribe. The appellant's 
caste claim was rejected by the Scrutiny Committee holding that the 
F 
appellant docs not belong to the said tribe. A writ petition was filed by 
the appellant. The High Court by an order dated II January 2000 
remanded the matter to the Scrutiny Committee. On 2 March 200 I the 
Scrutiny Committee invalidated the tribe chiim of the appellant. The 
appellant filed a Writ Petition before the High Court. By an order dated 
30 June 20.14, the High Court dismissed the petition. The appellant filed 
G 
another writ petition which was dismissed with costs by an order dated 
19 September 2014. Subsequently on 19 November 2014 the first 
respondent terminated the service of the appellant. Being aggrieved, the 
;, (Civil Appeal 8608/17@ SLP (C) ... CC No. 10889 of 2015) 
H
360 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
L2017111 S.C.R. 
A 
appellant filed another writ petition which was dismissed by the High 
Court by its order l 9 January 20 15. The above narration indicates a 
complete abuse of process by the appellant. 
For the reasons contained in the body of the present judgment 
and in view of the above, we find no merit in the appeal. The Civil 
B 
Appeal is accordingly dismissed. No other submission is separately urged. 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
There shall be no order as to costs. 
J 9 Pradip Gajanan Koli Vs.State or Maharashtra & Ors."': 
The appellant was appointed to the post offireman in the reserved 
category for the Scheduled Tribes on 12 March l 996. Thereafter a caste 
certificate dated 22 June 2000 certifying that the appellant belongs to 
the Mahadeo Koli Scheduled Tribe was issued. The caste certificate 
was referred to the Scrutiny Committee for verification. The appellant 
submitted an affidavit slating that he belongs to the said caste and also 
appeared before the Committee. By an order dated 7 July 2012 the 
Scrutiny Committee invalidated the caste certificate of the appellant. 
The appellant filed a writ petition which was disposed of by the High 
Court, by its judgment and order dated 20 November 2013 with a direction 
that in case the appellant is still in service as on that date. his employment 
shall not be terminated for a period of three months from the date of its 
order. 
For the reasons contained in the body of the present judgment,
we find no error in the impugned judgment. The Civil Appeal is 
accordingly dismissed. No other submission is separately urged. 
There shall be no order as lo costs. 
20 Union or India & Ors. Vs.Suryakant & Ors.•1 : 
The Director General, Vigilance, New Delhi by an order dated 1 
July 2005, initiated the verification of tribe certificates of employees 
who were appointed from 1995. Accordingly, the original tribe certificate 
of the respondent was asked to be produced. The respondent was 
appointed on the post of Lower Division Clerk reserved for the Scheduled 
Tribes on the strength ofa caste certificate stating that he belongs to the 
Mahadco Koli tribe. The certificate was issued by the Tahsildar, Ako la 
on 13 May l 985. Subsequently on enquiry about the authenticity of the 
tribe certificate, the Tahsildar, Akola informed that the register for the 
'"(Civil Appeal No.8598/17@ SLP (C) 18925 of2014) 
"'(Civil Appeal No.8597/17@ SLP (CJ No. 16852 of 2016)
CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR FCI v. JAGDISH 
361 
BALARAM BAHIRA [DR. D. Y. CHANDRACHUD. J.] 
year 1985 was not traceable and hence it cannot be stated whether 
A 
certificate was issued by office or otherwise. Instead of submitting his 
original caste certificate the respondent produced a fresh tribe certificate 
dated 21 July 2005 issued by S.D.O., Bhusawal wherein it was stated 
that he belongs to the Mahadeo Koli tribe. By an order dated I 0 October 
2011 the Scrutiny Committee invalidated the caste claim of the respondent. 
The respondent filed a writ petition before the High Court. The High 
Court by its impugned judgment and order dated 20 October 2015 allowed 
the writ petition, relying upon its Full Bench judgment in Arnn Sononc 
(supra) with a direction that the respondent is entitled to claim service 
protection and shall not be entitled to claim promotion in employment. 
The narration of facts reveals a complete misuse of process by 
the Respondent. For the reasons contained in the body of the judgment, 
the impugned order of the High Court is unsustainable and is accordingly 
set aside. The Civil Appeal is accordingly allowed in these terms. No 
separate submission is urged. 
B 
c 
There shall be no order as to costs. 
D 
21 Executive Director (Lubes), lndiun Oil Corporation Ltd. 
Vs. Ashok Mahadcorao Pathrabc & Ors.62 : 
The respondent joined IOCL in 1976 at i;, R & D Centre, 
Faridabad. At the time of the appointment, the respondent has shown 
himself as
belonging to the Halba Scheduled Tribe. The appointment 
was subject to the information submitted by the re~pondent being true 
and correct. The respondent submitted his caste certificate along with a 
prescribed form/documents on 15 December 2006 which were forwarded 
for verification. The Scrutiny Committee rejected the caste claim of the 
respondent on 4 October 2010. Being aggrieved, the respondent preferred 
an internal appeal and also a writ petition before the High Court. By its 
order dated I March 2011 the appellant rejected the appeal of the 
respondent upholding the dismissal order. Subsequently on 7 December 
20 I J the High Court also dismissed the petition of the respondent upholding 
the dismissal order. Being aggrieved, the respondent filed a Special Leave 
Petition before this Cmu1 which was dismissed by an order dated 27 
Febmary 2012. The appellant filed another writ petition before the High 
Cou11 which was allowed by an order dated 24 November 2015 to the 
extent that the services of the respondent were protected ti II his 
superannuation. 
"(Civil Appeal Nos.8599-8600/17@ SLP (C) Nos. 29388-89 of 2016) 
E 
F 
G 
H
362 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
l2017] l l S.C.R. 
A 
The facts narrated above reveal a complete misuse of process by 
the Respondent. For the reasons contained in the body of the judgment, 
the impugned orders of the High Court arc unsustainable and arc 
accordingly set aside. The Civil Appeals are accordingly allowed in these 
terms. No other ~ubmission is urged. 
B 
There sha II be no order as to costs. 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
22 The State of Maharashtra & Ors. Vs. Rupcsh 
s/o. Tcksingh Shindc'" : 
The respondent was appointed as a clerk on a post earmarked for 
the Vimukta Jatis on 26 March 1999 claiming that he belongs to the 
Raj put Bhamta Vimukta Jati. The caste claim of the respondent was 
referred to the Scrutiny Committee for verification and was invalidated 
by an order dated 29 July 2011. As the caste claim was invalidated the 
respondent was terminated from service by an order dated 16 August 
2011. Being aggrieved, the respondent filed a writ petition before the 
High Court. After hearing both the parties, the court remanded the matter 
back to the Scrutiny Committee. The caste certificate was again 
invalidated by an order dated 21 January 2014 and the Committee 
observed that the respondent obtained a false caste certificate and 
directed the registration of an FIR against the respondent, pursuant to 
which the services of the respondent were terminated. Being aggrieved 
the respondent filed a writ petition before the High Court. The High 
Cmu"t by its impugned judgment
and order dated 3 February 2016 allowed 
the writ petition relying upon its Full Bench judgment in the case of 
Arun Sononc Vs. State or Maharashtra (supra) with a direction to 
the appellant to reinstate the respondent on his original post. 
The facts narrated above indicate the manner in which the process 
has been abused by the Respondent. For the reasons contained in the 
body of the judgment, the impugned order of the High Court is 
unsustainable and is accordingly set aside. The Civil Appeal is accordingly 
al lowed in these terms. No other submission is urged. 
There shall be no order as to costs. 
Nidhi Jain 
Appeals disposed uf. 
"'(Civil Appeal Nos.8610/17 (ii/ SLP (C) No.2299 of 2017)