Collector must decide reinstatement representation in light of caste validation and prior court directions.

In brief

The question

Whether the Collector, Korba, was required to consider and decide the petitioner’s pending representation dated 11.04.2010 in light of the earlier High Court order dated 10.03.2010?

The court held

The writ petition was disposed of with a direction to the Collector, Korba, to consider and decide the petitioner’s representation dated 11.04.2010 and pass an appropriate order in accordance with law, keeping in view the High Court’s earlier order in WPS No. 3242 of 2005.

It also directed

The decision was to be made preferably within 30 days from receipt of a copy of the order.

01Facts

The petitioner, appointed as an Assistant Teacher on 09.09.1988, was terminated on 07.04.1999 on the allegation that he had submitted a forged caste certificate.

He challenged the termination in WPS No. 3242 of 2005. By order dated 10.03.2010, the High Court set aside the termination and directed that the petitioner’s case be referred to the State Level Caste Scrutiny Committee; if he was found to belong to the Bharia Scheduled Tribe, he was to be reinstated with all consequential benefits.

¶ 2

The State Level Caste Scrutiny Committee subsequently held, by order/report dated 08.10.2015, that the petitioner belonged to the Bharia Tribe.

¶ 5

Despite this finding, the petitioner alleged that he had not been reinstated or granted consequential benefits and that his representation dated 11.04.2010 seeking compliance remained pending.

¶ 2, 6

The State submitted that the representation would be considered and decided in accordance with law.

¶ 3

02Issues

i.Whether the Collector, Korba, was required to consider and decide the petitioner’s pending representation dated 11.04.2010 in light of the earlier High Court order dated 10.03.2010?

¶ 2, 5–6

ii.Whether the petitioner’s claim for reinstatement and consequential benefits was required to be examined after the Caste Scrutiny Committee found him to be a member of the Bharia Tribe?

¶ 2, 5–6

03Law Applied

The Court applied the binding effect of its earlier order in WPS No. 3242 of 2005, which directed reinstatement with all consequential benefits if the State Level Caste Scrutiny Committee found the petitioner to belong to the Bharia Tribe.

¶ 2, 5

It further applied the principle that an administrative authority must consider and decide a pending representation in accordance with law and in conformity with judicial directions, particularly where the factual condition specified in the earlier order has been fulfilled.

¶ 5–6

04Reasoning

The Court found that the earlier order imposed a specific obligation upon the respondents: upon a finding that the petitioner belonged to the Bharia Tribe, his reinstatement with consequential benefits was to follow.

¶ 5

Since the Caste Scrutiny Committee had admittedly recorded such a finding on 08.10.2015, the condition in the earlier judicial direction stood satisfied.

¶ 5

In view of the petitioner’s pending representation and the State counsel’s undertaking that it would be considered, the Court directed the Collector to examine the representation while keeping the earlier order dated 10.03.2010 in view.

¶ 6