Khushi Bajpai
Published on : 28th July 2022 at 16:25 IST
In a landmark decision, the Bombay High Court recently ruled that someone who was hired for a position in the public sector out of compassion must present their caste or tribe validity certificate if their parents, who had been hired under the reserved category, had not done so while they were alive.
A full Bench comprising of Justices Ravindra Ghuge, Dipankar Datta, and Vibha Kankanwadi stated that there were multiple instances when parents had obtained jobs in reserved positions but had not provided a proper certificate to support their claims of caste or tribe, defrauding the general public.
In a separate but concurring ruling, Chief Justice Datta noted that “we have witnessed in our society for quite some time past that the dishonest spare no chance to get benefits and privileges, which are not designed for them, by deception or deceit.”
The Bench was informed of two petitions submitted by a man and a woman, both of whom asked the authorities to stop insisting on a caste validity certificate because they had both been appointed to the position of their deceased parents and had done so on a humanitarian basis.
The Chief Justice stated in his decision that accepting the petitioners’ argument would equate to the Court endorsing the deceased workers’ failure to fulfil their legal requirement to produce the validity certificates after holding positions that were not intended for them.
The reserved category post held by the deceased employee will not be transformed into an open category post following the individual’s passing, as per separate ruling by Justice Ghuge and Justice Kankanwadi.
The Court made it plain that even if a vacancy arises unexpectedly owing to the employee’s passing, the said post would still be reserved for that category, opening the door for a compassionate appointment.
The Court further stated that the appointment of an ineligible individual would be detrimental to good governance. The court found that it would be against the rights of legitimate candidates to deny a valid candidate an appointment as a result of hiring a forger.
The court ruled that the compassionate appointee could not be excused from submitting the valid certificate that his father was required by law to submit because “we cannot tolerate the illegality to be committed.”
