Employee Erroneously Given Benefit Of Scheduled Tribe Quota Can't Be Terminated In Absence Of Any Misrepresentation On His Part: Allahabad HC

Petitioner was appointed in the Schedule Tribe category against posts of Assistant Deputy Controller, Junior Scale in 1990. Thereafter, he was promoted on the post of Assistant Deputy Controller, Senior Scale and was eventually promoted on the post of Deputy Controller on 31.07.2013.

Petitioner was issued a show cause notice in 2019, after about 30 years of joining service as to why he may not be terminated for claiming wrongful benefit claiming to be ST. His service was terminated on grounds that 'Meena' community is not a notified Scheduled Tribe in Uttar Pradesh. Accordingly, his appointment in 1990 was contrary to the Government Orders.

Petitioner challenged his termination before the High Court. The Single Judge quashed the termination of the petitioner on grounds that the petitioner's Tribe was well within the knowledge of the appointing authority at the time of his appointment in 1990. It was observed that the petitioner was also given two promotions.

State filed an appeal against the order of the Single Judge. Placing reliance on the decision of Supreme Court in Chairman and Managing Director, Food Corporation of India and others vs. Jagdish Balaram Bahira and other, counsel for State argued that the termination of the petitioner was right as 'Meena' tribe was not a notified tribe in 1990.

Counsel for the petitioner-respondent argued that there was no suppression about his caste at the time of his appointment. He cannot be terminated after serving for 30 years. It was argued that he had retired in 2023 and the State cannot be permitted to reverse an alleged mistake on part of their appointing authorities.

The Court observed that though at the time of petitioner's appointment the position regarding the appointment of a person belonging to Scheduled tribe recognized in another state in the State of UP was not crystalized, the same was crystalized later.

The Court relied on Md. Zamil Ahmed Vs. State of Bihar wherein the Supreme Court held that appointment cannot be cancelled after a lapse of 15 years on grounds of qualifications when the appointment was consciously given by the State.

Further reliance was placed on Dr. Shakuntala Mishra National Rehabilitation University Thru. Its Registrar and others vs. Dr. Rajendra Kumar Srivastava and another where a coordinate bench of the Allahabad High Court had held

“(59) Thus, this Court is of the view that once a selection is duly made, then in case there is any shortcomings in the said selection which is of such a nature that the same cannot be condoned, action has to be taken expeditiously. In the present case, there is no allegation that the writ petitioner/private respondent had misrepresented about their educational qualifications or their experience or where in any manner misconducted themselves in obtaining selection in the University. In absence of any fraud or misrepresentation having been committed by the writ petitioner/private respondent, the selection cannot be cancelled after long period of seven years.”

The Court distinguished the case of Chairman and Managing Director, Food Corporation of India and others on grounds that in that case the employee had misrepresented while gaining employment. However, there was no misrepresentation in case of the petitioner herein.

Upholding the order of the Single Judge, the bench comprising of Chief Justice Arun Bhansali and Justice Attau Rahman Masoodi held that petitioner could not be terminated from his post after serving for 30 years with satisfaction.

Accordingly, the special appeal filed by the State was dismissed.

Case Title: State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Civil Defence Lko And Others vs. Chhintar Mal Meena 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 185 [SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 209 of 2021]

Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 185

Counsel for Respondent-Employee: Sharad Kumar Srivastava, Shobhit Mohan Shukla

Click Here To Read/Download Order