Tribunal Cannot Trespass Into Foreign Territory Rendering Finding On Caste Status: Madhya Pradesh High Court

The division bench comprising of Justice Sheel Nagu and Justice Sunita Yadav was essentially dealing with a writ petition, wherein the Petitioner was challenging two orders passed by the Jabalpur Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT). The Tribunal had dismissed his application on merits and on ground of limitation.

The case of the Petitioner was that his candidature for appointment in SC category to the post of Electrical Signal Maintainer Grade-III (Category No.27) was cancelled on the ground that caste certificate furnished by him was not in prescribed proforma and that he in fact, belongs to OBC category. He approached the Allahabad Bench of CAT against the order of cancellation of his candidature, which was dismissed for want of jurisdiction and on merits. He preferred an appeal before the Allahabad High Court against the order passed by the Tribunal, which was dismissed on the question of territorial jurisdiction. The Petitioner then filed a fresh application before the Jabalpur Bench of CAT for the same grievance, which was dismissed on question of territorial jurisdiction.

The Petitioner approached the Apex Court, which quashed the findings rendered on merits by CAT Allahabad and Allahabad High Court, with a direction to revive his original application. He accordingly moved an application before the Allahabad Bench of CAT for the same grievance, which was transferred to its Jabalpur Bench. The Tribunal dismissed the application moved by the Petitioner and his subsequent review application against the same order of dismissal. He eventually filed a writ petition before the High Court of M.P. against the order of the Tribunal, challenging the dismissal of his original and review applications.

The Petitioner submitted that the Tribunal, while passing the impugned orders failed to consider that his candidature was cancelled exclusively on two grounds i.e., his caste certificate was not submitted in the prescribed format and that he actually belonged to OBC and not SC category.

With regard to the first ground, the Petitioner argued that if the caste certificate was not in proper format, he ought to have been afforded an opportunity to submit an appropriate caste certificate which could've very well been done after the last date of submission of application forms, in terms of law laid down by Apex Court in Ram Kumar Gijroya v. Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board & Anr. With respect to the second ground, the Petitioner contended that the employer had no occasion or jurisdiction to dwell upon the issue of his caste status as it lies within the exclusive domain of High Power Committee constituted under the executive instructions issued pursuant to the decision of Apex Court in Kumari Madhuri Patil & Anr. v. Addl. Commissioner, Tribal Development & Ors.

Per contra, the Respondent submitted that the petition was barred by limitation and that the Tribunal had decided the applications moved by the Petitioner on merits. Therefore, the interreference by the Court was not called for.

Considering the submissions put forth by the parties and the factual matrix, the Court decided to remand the matter to the Tribunal for reconsideration on merits for the following reasons-

• The Tribunal failed to consider the applicability of decision of Apex Court in Ram Kumar Gijroya case, wherein it is laid down that credentials regarding status of caste can very well be furnished even after elapse of the last date for submission of application forms. Even though the said case has been referred to a larger bench of the Supreme Court, till its verdict is pronounced, the judgment of Ram Kumar Gijroya case would prevail.
• The Tribunal ought to have seen that the employer rejected the candidature of Petitioner on the ground of non submission of the caste certificate in the prescribed proforma. If that alone was the deficiency in his candidature, then the employer ought to have afforded an opportunity to him to submit the caste certificate in the prescribed proforma.
• The employer and Tribunal erred in holding that the Petitioner is an OBC candidate and not SC candidate, thereby trespassing into the foreign territory of deciding the caste status of the Petitioner, which is exclusively reserved for competent authority or the High Powered Committee constituted pursuant to the decision of Apex Court in Madhuri Patil case.
• The Tribunal further erred in holding that the claim is barred by limitation and the same being untenable on merits. It is trite law that if the claim before the adjudicating authority is barred by limitation then the Court/Tribunal ought not to enter into merits of the matter.

The Court also pointed out that the Tribunal pronounced the impugned order more than a year after final hearing in the matter. It observed-

The belated pronouncement of the impugned order by Tribunal cannot further be countenanced in law. The final arguments in O.A. No.1140/2017 were heard and the said OA was reserved for final order on 23.01.2019, but the impugned order was pronounced on 28.02.2020 after a period of 13 months. The need and purpose of delivering judgment at the earliest is statutorily prescribed not only in the CPC, but also in the Central Administrative Tribunal Rules of Practice, 1993 (for brevity "Rules of 1993").

The Court came down heavily on the Tribunal and the Respondent for venturing into deciding the caste status of the Petitioner. The Court noted-

More so, the Tribunal fell in grave error in trespassing into the foreign territory while rendering a finding on caste status of petitioner by holding the petitioner to belong to OBC community. Venturing into this foreign territory vitiates the impugned orders.

The employer further committed another illegality in the impugned order dated 25.06.2010 of holding without any basis that the petitioner belongs to OBC category and not SC. It is settled in law that the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to render a finding as regards the caste status of a particular person. This power is exclusively vested in the competent authority under the State Government or in case of doubt with the High Powered Committee constituted pursuant to the verdict of Apex Court in Madhuri Patil.

In the instant case, the employer neither afforded any opportunity to the petitioner to furnish caste certificate in the prescribed proforma nor referred the matter to the High Powered Committee in case there was any doubt in regard to the caste status of petitioner.

The Court eventually held that since Tribunal had failed to adjudicate the cause raised by Petitioner in accordance with law, it was left with no other option but to truncate the impugned order of the Tribunal and remand the matter for adjudication. It further directed the Tribunal to consider and decide the claim of Petitioner on merits as expeditiously as possible.

Case Title: Subhash Chandra Vs Union Of India And Others
Case citation: 2022 LiveLaw (MP) 32

Click Here To Read/Download Order