Appointment cannot be cancelled until caste certificate is established as forged and cancelled by competent authority.

The applicant was appointed as an Extra Departmental Mail Peon (EDMP) on 28.10.1999 under the Scheduled Caste (SC) category based on a "Gond" caste certificate issued in 1996

Respondent No. 5 challenged this appointment (O.A. 119/2000), alleging the applicant belonged to the OBC category ("Kahar" sub-caste)

Following a 2006 District Magistrate (DM) order stating "Gond" residents did not exist in Azamgarh, the applicant's service was terminated in 2009

This termination was set aside by the Tribunal in O.A. 1010/2009, a decision affirmed by the Allahabad High Court in 2012, which held that the DM's general order could not automatically invalidate individual certificates without due process

Despite these rulings, the respondents issued new impugned orders on 19.10.2012 and 22.10.2012, again cancelling the applicant's appointment based on a fresh Tehsildar inquiry alleging the caste certificate was "doubtful" due to alterations in the revenue register

1. Whether an appointment made on the basis of a caste notification prevalent at the time of recruitment can be unsettled by subsequent statutory changes or general administrative orders

2. Whether the respondents could legally cancel the applicant's appointment without first formally cancelling the underlying caste certificate through a competent authority

The court applied the principle that an appointment based on a notification prevalent at the time of selection cannot be unsettled unless retrospectively provided by statute

It relied on Article 341(1) of the Constitution regarding the power to specify Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Orders (Amendment) Acts of 1976, 2002, and 2003

The court applied the precedent established by the Allahabad High Court in the applicant's own case (Writ Petition No. 92/2010), which held that a District Magistrate lacks the authority to issue general orders "en masse" cancelling caste certificates without individual inquiries and opportunity of hearing

The Tribunal found that the respondents disregarded specific directions from O.A. 1010/2009 and the High Court by cancelling the appointment based on "doubtful" entries in a revenue register (Annexure CA-7) rather than a formal cancellation of the certificate by a competent district authority

The court noted that while the respondents alleged the applicant's name was inserted in the register by striking off another name ("Ved Prakash"), this factual dispute required a thorough, transparent inquiry rather than summary termination

Crucially, the Tribunal reasoned that as long as the 1996 caste certificate remains legally valid and not declared "forged" or "cancelled" by a competent district body, the status of the applicant's employment cannot be disturbed

The respondents failed to address whether the applicant's status changed due to a subsequent notification or if the original issuance was fraudulent at the outset

The respondents were directed to reinstate the applicant with all consequential benefits within three months, failing which 6% interest would apply to arrears. However, the respondents were granted liberty to conduct a fresh, proper inquiry into the validity of the caste certificate, affording both the applicant and Respondent No. 5 an opportunity to be heard before passing any further orders