The Supreme Court on July 11, 2022 in the matter of The Chief Executive Officer, Bhilai Steel Plant, Bhilai v. Mahesh Kumar Gonnade & ors, observed that when a person secures appointment on the basis of a false caste certificate, he cannot be permitted to retain the benefit of wrongful appointment.

In the instant matter, the employee obtained wrongful Caste Certificate showing him to be “Halba” Scheduled Tribe from the Deputy Collector, Durg and on the basis of the said certificate, joined service as a Management Trainee (Technical) against a Schedule Tribe quota vacancy at the Bhillai Steel Plant of the Steel Authority of India Limited (SAIL). Later, High-Level Caste Scrutiny Committee, Raipur cancelled his Caste Certificate with the observation that he failed to produce documents prior to the year 1950 showing him as Halba. Following this, he was terminated from service. He challenged the Termination order before the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT). The Chhattisgarh High Court allowed his writ petition relying on a judgment of the Supreme Court in State of Maharashtra v. Milind and Ors. (2001) 1 SCC 4.

The Supreme Court in this case, placing reliance on Union of India v. Dattatray & Ors (2008) 4 SCC 612 observed that the Chhattisgarh High Court misapplied the State of Maharashtra v. Milind and Ors. (2001) 1 SCC 4, since the appointment as Management Trainee (Technical), cannot be compared to the education and appointment of a medical doctor. It observed:

“As we notice, the High Court disregarded the Government’s circular dated 11.01.2016 whereby the previous circular (01.10.2011) was cancelled with the specific observation that Milind’s judgment was clarified subsequently in Dattatray, by declaring that when a person secures appointment on the basis of a false certificate, he cannot be permitted to retain the benefit of wrongful appointment. In fact, necessary actions were expected to be taken against those who secured unmerited appointment on the basis of false caste certificate.”

The Supreme Court held that instead of granting equitable relief, the High Court should have ruled that he could not continue to usurp the benefits meant for a ST category person because he was an OBC. Respondent being an OBC cannot be retained in a ST category post. The emoluments paid to him, however, should not be recovered. It is also determined that the respondent is ineligible for any pensionary benefits as a result of his wrongful appointment.