Deciding Authority : Supreme Court of India
Date of Judgement: 04/01/2000
Bench : S. SAGHIR AHMAD & S.P. KURDUKAR
Facts : Respondent was a member of the Indian Administrative and Allied Services. He was appointed in 1968 against a reserved vacancy as he was treated to belong to “Nuniya” community which was declared to be a Scheduled Caste community in the State of West Bengal and not in the State of Bihar where the respondent was born and had his schooling throughout even up to Graduate level. It was for this reason that the Comptroller and Auditor General wrote to the respondent that he cannot be treated as a member of the Scheduled Caste community. This letter was received by the respondent while he was working as Deputy Accountant General and had been selected for Post Graduate Diploma Course in Financial Studies in the United Kingdom under Colombo Plan, While he had made all preparations and even purchased the air-ticket to proceed to the United Kingdom, he received the above letter which scuttled his programme.
Respondent, at that stage, approached the Central Administrative Tribunal where he contended that he belonged to “Nuniya” caste and the Caste Certificate produced by him at the lime of his examination, which was only checked and verified by the Union Public Service Commission (’UPSC’, for short), had been properly issued by the Sub-Divisional Of-ficer, Howrah, as his parents has been residing in that State for over 30 years prior to the date on which the examination was held by the Union Public Service Commission. His contention was accepted by the Judicial Member of the Tribunal, but the Administrative Member did not agree and gave a dissenting judgment. Consequently, the matter was referred to the Chairman who, by his judgment and order dated 15.2.1987, which is impugned in this appeal, agreed with the judicial Member and found that the respondent did belong to the “Nuniya’’ caste, which was duly notified as a Scheduled Caste in the State of West Bengal. It was further found that the ordinary place of residence of the parents of the respondent was Howrah from where the Caste Certificate was produced by the respondent, which was a proper and valid certificate. The Claim Petition was allowed with these findings and it is against this judgment that the Union of India has come in appeal before us.
Judgement : Shri P.P. Malhotra, learned Senior Counsel for the Union of India has contended that in allowing the Claim Petition the Tribunal committed a manifest error in not considering the true impact of the vital fact that the respondent was born in a village in Siwan District in the State of
Bihar where he also received his early education. He also graduated from a University in Bihar and, therefore, for all intents and purposes, he was to be treated as a member of “Nuniya’’ community of Bihar, which, for that State, had not been declared to be a Scheduled Caste.
Learned counsel for the respondent, on the contrary, submitted that in view of the admitted position that the parents of the respondent were residing in District Howrah for over 30 years prior to the date on which the examination was held by UPSC, their place of ordinary residence was District Howrah and, therefore, the Caste Certificate issued by the Sub- Divisional Officer, Howrah, was proper and valid and on that basis he was rightly allowed to appear in the Examination and on being selected, was properly appointed to the Service.
It was found that since the parents of the respondent were, admittedly, living in District Howrah for more than 30 years before the Examination in question was held, the District Officer or, for that matter, the Sub-Divisional Officer in the instant case, could legally issue the Caste Certificate and also certify that his parents were “ordinarily residing” in District Howrah. The mere fact that the
respondent, for purposes of education, stayed in the Stale of Bihar and graduated from a college in that state, would not affect the status of his parents who were already living in District Howrah for more than 30 years and consequently could be treated as “ordinarily residing” in District Howrah. Their status would not be affected by the temporary residence of the respondent, for the purpose of his education, in the State of Bihar. La such a situation, the respondent had no option but to obtain the Certificate from the Sub-Divisional Officer, Howrah, as he could not have deviated from the “Instructions” already issued by the UPSC.
The Hon’ble Court also determined the meaning of the word “domicile” for its application under this case and for such determination relied on various dictionaries such as Tomlin’s Law Dictionary ,Black’s Law Dictionary, 5th Edition and Oxford Dictionary. The court further, took reference from various landmark cases such as Jagir Kaur & Anr. v. Jaswant Singh, [1964] 2 SCR 73 , Whicker v. Hume, 28 L.J. Ch. 396 , Me Mullen v. Wadsworth, 14 A.C. 631 and Ross v. Ross, (1930) A.C. The Hon’ble Court after considering all of the above text found the certificate to be valid .
Held : Appeal dismissed.
Tejasv Anand , IVth Year , AMITY LAW SCHOOL DELHI .
A COMPREHENSIVE WEBSITE FOR ALL LEGAL DEVELOPMENTS