Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 4
CASE NO.:
Appeal (civil) 54 of 2005
PETITIONER:
G.M., INDIAN BANK
RESPONDENT:
R. RANI & ANR
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 06/12/2007
BENCH:
B.N. AGRAWAL & P.P. NAOLEKAR
JUDGMENT:
J U D G M E N T
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 54 OF 2005
WITH
Civil Appeal Nos. 59-61 of 2005, Civil Appeal Nos. 55-57 of
2005, Civil Appeal No. 50 of 2006, Civil Appeal No. 51 of
2006
WITH
Civil Appeal No. 5661/2007 [Arising out of SLP (C)
Nos. 1823 of 2006]; Civil Appeal No. 5663/2007
[Arising out of SLP (C) No. 1829 of 2006]; Civil Appeal No.
5664/2007 [Arising out of SLP (C) No. 5746 of 2006];
Civil Appeal No. 5665/2007 [Arising out of SLP (C)
Nos. 18353 of 2005]; Civil Appeal Nos. 5668-5669/2007
[Arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 18694-18695 of 2005]; Civil
Appeal Nos. 5666-5667/2007 [Arising out of SLP (C) Nos.
12123-12124 of 2005]
B.N. AGRAWAL, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. The private respondents in these appeals were
appointed in the banks against the vacancies of Scheduled
Tribe as they claimed themselves to be members of Konda
Reddy Community which is a Scheduled Tribe. Most of them
were appointed by the Indian Bank but some of them by the
State Bank of India. Subsequently it transpired that they did
not belong to Konda Reddy Community, as such an enquiry
was directed which was conducted by a District Level
Committee which found that they did not belong to Konda
Reddy Community and accordingly certificates granted in
their favour were cancelled. In all the cases, except in Civil
Appeal No. 54/2005, the private respondents challenged the
aforesaid decision of the District Level Committee before the
State Level Committee which confirmed the same in most of
the cases whereas in other cases matters remained pending
before the State Level Committee. In the meantime, in
accordance with the decisions of District Level Committee
the services of private respondents were terminated which
necessitated filing of the Writ Petitions before the High
Court, which have been allowed by different orders. In all the
cases orders passed by the Committee cancelling the
certificates and consequential orders of termination have
been quashed and it has been directed that it would be open
to the properly constituted Committee to hold fresh enquiry
in accordance with law. In some of the Writ Petitions
directions have been given for reinstatement also. In relation
to payment of back-wages it has been directed in some of the
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 4
Writ Petitions that the same would abide the result of
enquiry by a properly constituted Committee. In Civil Appeal
No. 54/2005 against the order of single Judge when the
matter was taken in appeal the same has been confirmed
whereas in other cases no appeal was filed. Hence, these
appeals by the Indian Bank as well as State Bank of India by
Special Leave.
3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants
in support of the appeals submitted that the High Court was
not justified in holding that constitution of the Committee
was not in accordance with the judgment rendered by this
Court in the case of Kumari Madhuri Patil and Anr. vs.
Addl. Commissioner, Tribal Development and Ors., [1994]
6 SCC 241 as the directions contained therein in relation to
constitution of the Committee were mere guidelines. It was
further submitted that even if there was any infirmity in the
constitution of the District Level Committee, the order has
been confirmed by the State Level Committee which was
duly constituted, as such the High Court should not have
interfered. It was also submitted that the High Court was not
justified in directing the private respondents to be reinstated
in service.
4. We first proceed to consider the question as to whether
the directions contained in the decision of this court in the
case of Kumari Madhuri Patil (supra) were merely
guidelines or law laid down by this Court. In the case of
Kumari Madhuri Patil (supra) after due consideration the
Court gave various directions. Direction number 4 in
paragraph 13 at page 254 reads thus:
"4. All the State Governments shall
constitute a Committee of three officers,
namely, (I) an Additional or Joint Secretary
or any officer higher in rank of the Director
of the department concerned, (II) the
Director, Social Welfare/Tribal
Welfare/Backward Class Welfare, as the
case may be, and (III) in the case of
Scheduled Castes another officer who has
intimate knowledge in the verification and
issuance of the social status certificates. In
the case of the Scheduled Tribes, the
Research Officer who has intimate
knowledge in identifying the tribes, tribal
communities, parts of or groups of tribes or
tribal communities. "
5. According to aforesaid direction No. 4, the Committee
for verifying the caste certificate shall be constituted of three
persons, viz., (I) an Administrative Officer, (II) the Director,
Social Welfare/Tribal Welfare/Backward Class Welfare, as
the case may be, and (III) in the case of Scheduled Castes,
an Officer who has intimate knowledge in the verification
and issuance of social status certificates and in the case of
Scheduled Tribes, the Research Officer who has intimate
knowledge in identifying the tribes, tribal communities, parts
of or groups of tribes or tribal communities. Subsequently
for recall of the aforesaid judgment a Petition was filed before
this Court which was disposed of in the case of Kumari
Madhuri Patil & Anr. vs. Addl. Commr., Tribal
Development, Thane and Ors. (1997) 5 SCC 437 and no
change was made in the constitution of the Committee.
6. The directions given in the decision of Kumari Madhuri
Patil (supra) have been reiterated in the case of Director of
Tribal Welfare, Government of A.P. vs. Laveti Giri and
Anr., (1995) 4 SCC 32 in which while reiterating it was
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 4
observed that Government of India should have the matter
examined in greater detail and bring about a uniform
legislation in relation to these matters. In the case of
Baswant vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors., JT 2000 (10) SC
280 this Court held that the constitution of the Committee
was not in accordance with the decision rendered by this
Court in Kumari Madhuri Patil (supra), as such the appeal
was allowed and it was directed to constitute the Committee
in terms of the decision of this Court in the case of Kumari
Madhuri Patil (supra) and decide the matter afresh. The
said directions of this Court in the case of Kumari Madhuri
Patil (supra) regarding constitution of Committee have been
approved by a 3-Judge Bench of this Court in the case of
Sudhakar Vithal Kumbhare v. State of Maharashtra and
Ors., (2004) 9 SCC 481 in which as the matter was not
referred to appropriate Committee in terms of directions
given in the case of Kumari Madhuri Patil (supra) the
appeal was allowed and it was directed that the properly
constituted Committee shall decide the matter. In view of the
foregoing discussions it cannot be said that the directions
given in the case of Kumari Madhuri Patil (supra) were
simply guidelines. In our view, the law laid down in the case
of Kumari Madhuri Patil (supra) has been reiterated times
without number not only by 2-Judge Benches but even by a
3-Judge Bench of this Court.
7. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants
has relied upon the decision of this Court in the case of
Director of Tribal Welfare v. Laveti Giri and Others,
(1997) 4 SCC 271 in which draft rules prepared by the State
of Andhra Pradesh in relation to the constitution of
Committee was placed before the Court and this Court
directed the State Government to publish the same in the
Gazette. It has been submitted that according to the draft
rules the State Level Committee was required to be
constituted of six persons and District Level Committee of
five persons and it was mentioned in the rules that the
presence of three persons will form the required quorum for
the meeting of the Committee. In the District Level
Committee out of the five members, Scheduled Tribe and
Scheduled Caste Welfare Officer were mentioned in one
category and in another category, Anthropologist was
mentioned. As presence of the three members would form
the quorum it was submitted that even if the Welfare Officer
and Anthropologist are not there in the Committee the same
would not invalidate its constitution. From bare perusal of
the aforesaid judgment it would be clear that though the
draft rules have been approved by this Court and direction
has been given for its publication in the State Gazette but
nowhere it has been mentioned that the directions in the
case of Kumari Madhuri Patil (supra) have been modified in
any manner in relation to constitution of the Committee.
This being the position, we do not find any substance in the
first submission of the learned counsel appearing on behalf
of the appellants.
8. So far as the second submission is concerned, we are of
the view that as the constitution of the District Level
Committee was in infraction of law laid down by this Court
in the case of Kumari Madhuri Patil (supra) the defect could
not have been cured by taking the matter in appeal to State
Level Committee. This being the position, we are of the view
that the High Court was quite justified in quashing the
orders passed by District Level Committee, State Level
Committee and the orders of termination.
9. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants
lastly submitted that the High Court should not have passed
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 4
the order of reinstatement. This point is squarely concluded
by a 3-Judge Bench of this Court in the case of Sudhakar
Vithal Kumbhare (supra) in which on the ground of very
same infirmity in the constitution of the Committee the
direction was given by this Court to reinstate the
government servant till the matter was decided by the
Committee afresh. As such we do not find any substance in
this submission as well.
10. For the foregoing reasons we do not find any merit in
these appeals which are accordingly dismissed and the
District Level Committee, now duly constituted by the State
Government, is directed to decide the matter afresh in
accordance with law within a period of six months from the
date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. In the
circumstances of the case, we direct that there shall be no
order as to costs.