Holding

The Supreme Court held that the Kumari Madhuri Patil directions are binding law, an improperly constituted District Level Committee’s orders are void and cannot be cured by appeal, and the High Court was correct in quashing the terminations and ordering reinstatement.

Summary

The respondents were appointed to bank positions reserved for Scheduled Tribes on the basis of caste certificates claiming membership in the Konda Reddy community. A District Level Committee later cancelled those certificates after an enquiry, leading to their termination. The High Court quashed the committee’s orders, holding that the committee was not constituted in accordance with the directions laid down in Kumari Madhuri Patil’s case, and ordered reinstatement and a fresh enquiry by a properly constituted committee. The banks appealed, arguing that the High Court erred in treating the Kumari Madhuri Patil directions as binding and that the defect could be cured by the State Level Committee. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court, declaring the Kumari Madhuri Patil directions to be law, not mere guidelines, and stating that an improperly constituted committee’s orders cannot be validated by appeal. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed and the District Level Committee was directed to reconvene with the correct composition within six months.

Issues considered

Whether the directions issued in Kumari Madhuri Patil v. Addl. Commissioner are binding law or merely guidelines for constituting a verification committee.
Whether a defect in the constitution of a District Level Committee can be cured by referral to a State Level Committee.
Whether the High Court was justified in quashing the termination orders and directing reinstatement of the employees.

Legislation cited

Constitution of Indias. Article 342, s. Article 366(25)

Subjects

caste verificationscheduled tribesocial status certificatecommittee constitutionterminationreinstatementadministrative law

Judgment

A G.M. INDIAN BANK r'·
v.
R. RANI & ANR.

DECEMBER 6, 2007
B
[B.N. AGRAWAL AND P.P. NAOLEKAR, JJ.] ,....
Constitution of India, 1950-Articles 366(25) and 342-
Verification of caste of employees appointed on basis of caste
c certificates-A District Level Committee cancelled the caste
certificates-Consequently, employees terminated-High Court
holding that constitution of Committee not as per Kumari Madhuri
Patil's case-Committee's Order and termination order quashed-
Directions passed to properly constituted Committee to hold fresh
D enquiry-Held: Order of High Court justified-Directions given in
Kumari Madhuri Patil's case not merely guidelines-Social status
certificate.
The respondents were appointed in the banks, on basis of Social
Status Certificate. Subsequently, it was found that the respondent
E
did not belong to the particular community as claimed by them. A
District Level Committee conducted an enquiry and on finding that
respondents did not belong to the particular community, cancelled
the certificates. The respondents challenged the decision of the
District Level Committee. The State Level Committee upheld the
F same. Meanwhile, the respondents were terminated from service. ~-

The respondents filed writ petitions challenging the order of the
District Level Committee. The High Court held that the constitution
of the Committee was not in accordance with the directions contained
in the case of *Kumari Madhuri Patil. It quashed the order passed
G by the Committee canceling the caste certificates and also the
termination orders. The High Court directed the properly constituted
Committee to hold fresh enquiry. The directions were passed for
reinstating the employees. Hence, the instant appeals by the Indian
Bank as well as State Bank of India.
H 1024
t
~·

1026 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 12 S.C.R.

A the order of reinstatement, is squarely concluded by a 3-Judge
Bench of this Court in the case of ***Sudhakar Vithal Kumbhare in
which on the ground of very same infirmity in the constitution of the
Committee, this Court directed to reinstate the government servant
till the matter was decided by the Committee afresh. Thus, there is
B no substance in the submission.[Para 9] [1030-D-E]

***Sudhakar Vithal Kumbhare v. State ofMaharashtra and Ors.,
[2004] 9 sec 481, relied on.

1.5. The District Level Committee, now duly constituted by the
c State Government, is directed to decide the matter afresh in
accordance with law. [Para 10] [1030-F]

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 54 of
2005.

D From the Judgment and Order dated 25.3.2003 of the High Court '~· '
of Judicature at Madras in W.A. No. 2969/2002.
WITH
C.A. Nos. 59-61, 55-57 of 2005, 50, 51 of 2006, 5661, 5663,
E 5664, 5665, 5666, 5667 and 5668-5669 of 2007.
I·
R. Mohan, A.S.G., Raju Ramachandran, L.N. Rao, V.K. Rao,
Madhu Sikri, Saket Sikri, Saurabh Suman Sinha, Rishad Ahmad
Chowdhury, V.G. Pragasam, Joseph Aristotle, S. Prabhu
Ramasubramanian, V. Vijayshankar, S. Arvindh, Rakesh K. Sharma, D.
F Verma, Senthil Jagadeesan and Aparna Bhat for the appearing parties. ~

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
B.N. AGRAWAL, J. 1. Leave granted.

G 2. The private respondents in these appeals were appointed in the
banks against the vacancies of Scheduled Tribe as they claimed themselves
to be members ofKonda Reddy Community which is a Scheduled Tribe.
Most of them were appointed by the Indian Bank but some of them by
the State Bank of India Subsequently it transpired that they did not belong
to Konda Reddy Community, as such an enquiry was directed which was
H
G.M. INDIAN BANK v. R. RANI 1025

Dismissing the appeals, the Court A
HELD: 1.1 In the case of *Kumari Madhuri Patil the Court gave
directions for constitution of Committee of three officers, as
mentioned therein, for verifying the caste certificates. The law laid
down in the case of *Kumari Madhuri Patil was reiterated times
without number not only by 2-Judge Benches but even by a 3-Judge B
Bench of this Court. Thus, it cannot be said thatthe directions given
in the case of *Kumari Madhuri Patil were simply guidelines.
(Para 6) (1029-B-D]

*Kumari Madhuri Patil and Anr. v. Addi. Commissioner. Tribal c
Development and Ors., [1994) 6 SCC 241; Kumari Madhuri Patil and
Anr. v.Addl. Commr., Tribal Development, Thane and Ors., (1997] 5
SCC 437; Baswant v. State ofMaharashtra and Ors., JT (2000) 10
SC 280; Director ofTribal Welfare, Government ofA.P. v. Laveti Giri
and Ors., (1995) 4 SCC 32 and Sudhakar Vithal Kumbhare v. State of D
Maharashtra & Ors., [2004) 9 SCC 4&1, relied on.
1.2. From a bare perusal of the judgment of this Court in
**Laveti Giri 's case, it is clear that though the draft rules have been
approved by this Court and direction has been given for its
publication in the State Gazette but nowhere it has been mentioned E
that the directions in the case of Kumari Madhuri Patil have been
modified in any manner in relation to constitution of the Committee.
[Para 7) [1029-G-H; 1030-A)

-~ **Director of Tribal Welfare, Government ofA.P. v. Laveti Giri F
and Anr., [1995) 4 SCC 32, referred to.
1.3. As the constitution of the District Level Committee was in
infraction of law laid down by this Court in the case of Kumari
Madhuri Patil the defect could not have been cured by taking the
matter in appeal to State Level Committee. Thus, the High Court G
was justified in quashing the orders passed by District Level
Committee, State Level Committee and the order of termination.
[Para 8) [1030-B-C]
1.4. The submission that the High Court should not have passed H
G.M. INDIAN BANK v. R. RANI [B.N. AGRA WAL,J.] 1027

conducted by a District Level Committee which found that they did not A
belong to Konda Reddy Community and accordingly certificates granted
in their favour were cancelled. In all the cases, except in Civil Appeal
No. 54/2005, the private respondents challenged the aforesaid decision
of the District Level Committee before the State Level Committee which
confinned the same in most of the cases whereas in other cases matters B
remained pending before the State Level Committee. In the meantime, in
accordance with the decisions of District Level Committee the services
of private respondents were tenninated which necessitated filing of the
Writ Petitions before the High Court, which have been allowed by different
orders. In all the cases orders passed by the Committee cancelling the C
certificates and consequential orders of tennination have been quashed
and it has been directed that it would be open to the properly constituted
Committee to hold fresh enquiry in accordance with law. In some of the
Writ Petitions directions have been given for reinstatement also. In relation
to payment of back-wages it has been directed in some of the Writ D
J Petitions that the same would abide the result of enquiry by a properly
constituted Committee. In Civil Appeal No. 54/2005 against the order
of single Judge when the matter was taken in appeal the same has been
confirmed wh-;:reas in other cases no appeal was filed. Hence, these
appeals by the Indian Bank as well as State Bank oflndia by Special E
Leave.
3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants in support
of the appeals submitted that the High Court was not justified in holding
that constitution of the Committee was not in accordance with the
judgment rendered by this Court in the case of Kumari Madhuri Patil F
and Anr. v. Addi. Commissioner, Tribal Development and Ors., [1994]
6 sec 241 as the directions contained therein in relation to constitution
of the Committee were mere guidelines. It was further submitted that even
ifthere was any infinnity in the constitution of the District Level Committee,
the order has been confomed by the State Level Committee which was G
duly constituted, as such the High Court should not have interfered. It
•. was also submitted that the High Court was not justified in directing the
private respondents to be reinstated in service.
4. We first proceed to consider the question as to whether the
H
't-
1028 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 12 S.C.R.

A directions contained in the decision of this court in the case of Kumari
Madhuri Patil (supra) were merely guidelines or law laid down by this
Court. In the case of Kumari Madhuri Patil (supra) after due
consideration the Court gave various directions. Direction number 4 in
paragraph 13 at page 254 reads thus:
B "4. All the State Governments shall constitute a Committee of three
officers, namely, (I) an Additional or Joint Secretary or any officer t
higher in rank of the Director of the department concerned, (II)
the Director, Social Welfare/Tribal Welfare/Backward Class
Welfare, as the case may be, and (III) in the case of Scheduled
c Castes another officer who has intimate knowledge in the
verification and issuance of the social status certificates. In the case
of the Scheduled Tribes, the Research Officer who has intimate
knowledge in identifying the tribes, tribal communities, parts of or
groups of tribes or tribal communities."
D
5. According to aforesaid direction No. 4, the Committee for 'I
verifying the caste certificate shall be constituted of three persons, viz.,
(I) an Administrative Officer, (II) the Director, Social Welfare/Tribal
Welfare/Backward Class Welfare, as the case may be, and (III) in the
E case of Scheduled Castes, an Officer who has intimate knowledge in the
verification and issuance of social status certificates and in the case of
Scheduled Tribes, the Research Officer who has intimate knowledge in
identifying the tribes, tribal communities, parts of or groups of tribes or
tribal communities. Subsequently for recall of the aforesaid judgment a
Petition was filed before this Court which was disposed of in the case of
F
Kumari Madhuri Patil & Anr. v. Addi. Commr., Tribal Development, ~-

Thane and Ors., (1997) 5 SCC 437 and no change was made in the
constitution of the Committee.
6. The directions given in the decision of Kumari Madhuri Patil
G (supra) have been reiterated in the case of Director of Tribal Welfare,
Government ofA.P. v. Laveti Giri and Anr., [1995] 4 SCC 32, in which
while reiterating it was observed that Government oflndia should have \
the matter examined in greater detail and bring about a uniform legislation
in relation to these matters. In the case of Baswant v. State of
H Maharashtra & Ors., JT (2000) 10 SC 280, this Court held that the
G.M. INDIAN BANK v. R. RANI [B.N. AGRA WAL, J.] 1029

f"--' constitution of the Committee was not in accordance with the decision A
rendered by this Court in Kumari Madhuri Patil (supra), as such the
appeal was allowed and it was directed to constitute the Committee in
te1ms of the decision of this Court in the case of Kumari Madhuri Patil
(supra) and decide the matter afresh. The said directions of this Court in
the case of Kuman· Madhuri Patil (supra) regarding constitution of B
> ~ Committee have been approved by a 3-Judge Bench of this Court in the
case of Sudhakar Vithal Kumbhare v. State ofMaharashtra and Ors.,
[2004] 9 sec 481 in which as the matter was not referred to appropriate
Committee in terms of directions given in the case of Kumari Madhuri
Patil (supra) the appeal was allowed and it was directed that the properly c
constituted Committee shall decide the matter. In view of the foregoing
discussions it cannot be said that the directions given in the case of Kumari
Madhuri Patil (supra) were simply guidelines. In our view, the law laid
down in the case of Kumari Madhuri Patil (supra) has been reiterated
· times without number not only by 2-Judge Benches but even by a 3-Judge
D
Bench of this Court.
7. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants has relied
upon the decision of this Court in the case of Director of Tribal Welfare
v. Lave ti Giri and Ors., [1997] 4 SCC 271, in which draft rules
prepared by the State of Andhra Pradesh in relation to the constitution E
of Committee was placed before the Court and this Court directed the
State Government to publish the same in the Gazette. It has been submitted
that according to the draft rules the State Level Committee was required
to be constituted of six persons and District Level Committee of five
persons and it was mentioned in the rules that the presence of three F
persons will fonn the required quorum for the meeting of the Committee.
In the District Level Committee out of the five members, Scheduled Tribe
and Scheduled Caste Welfare Officer were mentioned in one category
and in another category, Anthropologist was mentioned. As presence of
the three members would fonn the quorum it was submitted that even if G
the Welfare Officer and Anthropologist are not there in the Committee
/
" the same would not invalidate its constitution. From bare perusal of the
aforesaid judgment it would be clear that though the draft rules have been
approved by this Court and direction has been given for its publication in
the State Gazette but nowhere it has been mentioned that the directions H
1030 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 12 S.C.R.

A in the case of Kumari Madhuri Patil (supra) have been modified in any
manner in relation to constitution of the Committee. This being the position,
we do not find any substance in the first submission of the learned counsel
appearing on behalf of the appellants.
8. So far as the second submission is concerned, we are of the view
B that as the constitution of the District Level Committee was in infraction
of law laid down by this Court in the case of Kumari Madhuri Patil
(supra) the defect could not have been cured by taking the matter in appeal
to State Level Committee. This being the position, we are of the view
that the High Court was quite justified in quashing the orders passed by
C District Level Committee, State Level Committee and the orders of
termination.
9. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants lastly
submitted that the High Court should not have passed the order of
D reinstatement. This point is squarely concluded by a 3-Judge Bench of
this Court in the case of Sudhakar Vithal Kumbhare (supra) in which
on the ground of very same infirmity in the constitution of the Committee
the direction was given by this Court to reinstate the government servant
till the matter was decided by the Committee afresh. As such we do not
E find any substance in this submission as well.
10. For the foregoing reasons we do not find any merit in these
appeals which are accordingly dismissed and the District Level Committee,
now duly constituted by the State Government, is directed to decide the
matter afresh in accordance with law within a period of six months from
F the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. In the circumstances
of the case, we direct that there shall be no order as to costs.
N.J. Appeals dismissed.