Patna High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.7339 of 2002 =========================================================== Laxaman Mandal, son of Sri Moti Mandal, resident of village – Madana, Tola – Dhokara, Police Station – Andhratharhi, District - Madhubani .... .... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The State Of Bihar 2. The Secretary, Education Department, Government of Bihar, Patna 3. The Deputy Director, Education, Darbhanga Region at Darbhanga 4. The District Magistrate, Madhubani 5. The District Superintendent of Education, Madhubani 6. The Sub-divisional Education Officer, Jhanjharpur, District – Madhubani 7. The Block Development Officer, Andharatharhi, District - Madhubani .... .... Respondent/s =========================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ram Suresh Rai, Sr. Advocate For the Respondent/s : Mr. Prabhat Kumar Singh, AC to GA-1 =========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR TRIPATHI ORAL JUDGMENT Date: 03-05-2013 *************** When the Writ Application was filed by the petitioner he was looking for quashing of the entire proceeding against him, as respondent-authorities had failed to carry out exercise of enquiry within the limited time-frame, which emerges from order, contained in Annexure- 1. He also wanted payment of salary etc. as a consequence thereof. The Writ Application to the misfortune of the petitioner came to be admitted on 16.08.2002. At that point of time an order contained in Annexure- D was brought to the notice of the Court, which is dated 29.07.2002. By virtue of this order passed by the District Superintendent of Education, Madhubani, petitioner was
Legal Reasoning
Patna High Court CWJC No.7339 of 2002 dt.03-05-2013 2/5 dismissed from service on the ground that he had obtained employment under the State as an Assistant Teacher by mis-declaration of caste. Petitioner was appointed way back in the year 1973 on the post of an Assistant Teacher. After many years of service when the petitioner asserted his right for promotion, his service was terminated vide Memo No. 4507, dated 23.12.1998 on the ground that he had produced a forged caste certificate to obtain appointment. According to the petitioner as well as the State, caste certificate, so produced, indicated the petitioner belongs to what is known as “Turi”, because it is said to be a scheduled caste. All along petitioner has stuck to the position that he was a scheduled caste and continues to be scheduled caste, but on a misunderstanding of social structure, the respondent authorities have declared him to be an imposter as a scheduled caste. In enquiry, they have found that petitioner belongs to what is known as “Khatwe” caste, which according to the State is not a scheduled caste but EBC. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner points out the infirmity in the conclusion which has been reached by the respondent in holding the petitioner guilty Patna High Court CWJC No.7339 of 2002 dt.03-05-2013 3/5 of mis-declaration as to his caste. He has brought certain empirical evidence not only by way of a report which had certain credibility at a point of time, created by a person, known as Mungeri Lal, who was supposed to be the Chairman of the Backward Class Commission. In his report there is a discussion about “Khatwes” and similar sounding names as well as their social status, which has been dealt in the report that such caste or community are found with different surnames in certain geographical area of north Bihar, but they are basically scheduled caste, who come under the broad category of “Chaupals”. In addition to the above submission as well as the stand, a supplementary affidavit filed today brings on record a significant document, dated 15.09.1985, which is Annexure – 7. Reading of the said document would show that the recommendation of Mungeri Lal Commission as well as inputs taken from various organizations does reflect the position that “Khatwes” broadly come under the spectrum of “Chaupal”, who are found in the district of Darbhanga, Madhubani and few other districts adjoining hereto. They happen to be scheduled castes. “Chaupal” have been indicated and designated in the presidential proclamation as scheduled Patna High Court CWJC No.7339 of 2002 dt.03-05-2013 4/5 caste, therefore, the finding given by the State authorities as to the social status to the petitioner to be a “Khatwes”, in no manner alters his position in society of that of being a scheduled caste. The State could have had an arguable case, provided petitioner was a usurper of a post reserved for scheduled caste, but whether he goes by the surname or name of “Turi”, “Khatwe” or “Chaupal”, he continues to be a scheduled caste and the finding recorded against him that there was misrepresentation and petitioner had tendered a certificate of scheduled caste by showing himself to be “Turi”, when he was a “Khatwe” is only argument for the argument sake. The larger picture does not alter the status of the petitioner. In the above stated circumstances and taking above materials into consideration, even if the finding of the State authorities is accepted on the face value that petitioner was a “Khatwe”, it does not alter his status as a scheduled caste. No doubt, “Khatwe” were shown as EBC in a notification issued by the State of Bihar, but that position also stands altered, because they have been deleted from the notification from the category of EBC. Probably this has been done after due deliberation as to whether Patna High Court CWJC No.7339 of 2002 dt.03-05-2013 5/5 they actually belongs EBC or not. In totality, therefore, the impugned order, contained in Annexure- D, dated 29.07.2002 is quashed. Writ Application is allowed. However, since the petitioner has already superannuated during the pendency of the Writ Application, obviously he cannot be reinstated back in service. Because of the illegal action or decision arrived at by the respondents, the petitioner has lost valuable time and fruitful years as a government servant after having worked for more than 15 years and the rest of the period had gone in litigation. The Court, therefore, feels that the order of termination being bad per se, petitioner is entitled to his salary for the period he had been dismissed and remained dismissed till his age of superannuation. He shall also be entitled to his retrial benefit by virtue of quashing of Annexure – D. The original record which was tendered by the State is hereby returned to the State counsel for onward transmission. (Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J.) Patna High Court, Patna Dated: 03.05.2013 NAFR/- Shashi Kant Mishra/-