Holding

An appointment obtained through a fraudulent caste certificate is void ab initio, rendering the appointee outside the protection of Article 311; consequently, his termination is lawful, while his son’s exam result may be declared with the condition that he receives no future Scheduled‑Caste benefits.

Summary

R. Vishwanatha Pillai was appointed to posts reserved for Scheduled Castes on the basis of a caste certificate that was later found to be false. An anthropological enquiry and a Scrutiny Committee confirmed that he did not belong to a Scheduled Caste, leading to the cancellation of his appointment. The Supreme Court held that because the appointment was void ab initio, Pillai was never a civil servant within the meaning of Article 311 and therefore could not claim its procedural protection; his termination was valid. The Court also ruled that his son, who had obtained admission to a professional college using the same fraudulent certificate, could have his examination results declared, but he would be treated as a general‑category candidate for any future benefit. The Court dismissed the service‑termination appeal (Civil Appeal No. 89) and allowed the admission‑result appeal (Civil Appeal No. 90).

Issues considered

The validity of an appointment to a reserved post obtained on a false caste certificate.
Whether Article 311 of the Constitution and the All India Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules apply when the appointment is void.
Whether the appellant is entitled to procedural safeguards and pension rights under Article 311.
Whether the decision in Kumari Madhuri Patil’s case applies prospectively to this case.
The entitlement of the appellant’s son to have his examination results declared despite the cancellation of his caste certificate.

Legislation cited

All India Services Act, 1951s. Section 3(1)
All India Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1969s. Rule 6, s. Rule 7
Constitution of Indias. Article 311

Subjects

ReservationFalse caste certificateArticle 311Service terminationAll India Services (Discipline and Appeal) RulesEquityPension rightsEducational admissionScrutiny Committee

Judgment

A R. VISHWANATHA PILLAI \-'\
v.
ST ATE OF KERALA AND ORS.

JANUARY 7, 2004
.. .
B [V.N. KHARE, CJ., ASHOK BHAN AND DR. AR. LAKSHMANAN, JJ.].

'f
Service Law:

Constitution of India, /9j0; Article 31//All India Services Act, 1951;
c Section 3(1)/All lndia Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1969; Rules 6,
7(1)(2):

Appointment of appellant against a post reserved for Scheduled Caste
allegedly on the bas1s of a false certificate-Challenge to-Anthropological
enquily reveals that he does not belongs to Scheduled Caste community-
D Affirmed by the Scrutiny Committee and the High Court-SLP/Review Petition
dismissed by the Supreme Court.

Termination ofservices of incumbent without following due procedure- ~ ,,
Challenge allowed by CAT holding that service of the appellant be not
E terminated without complying with the procedure laid down under Article 311
of the Constitution and Rules-Reversed by the High Court-On appeal, Held:
Appointment of the incumbent cancelled not on the ground of misconduct but
on the findings that he does not belongs to Scheduled Caste community-
Constitutional safeguard provided in terms of Article 311 of the Constitution
have been followed-Rules 617 of the Rules complied with-Since caste
F certificate found to be false, appointment of the incumbent was no appointment
in the eyes of law-He usurped the post meant for a reserved candidate- y
Hence, he cannot claim such right which accrues to a Government Servant by
virtue of holding a post in the Government service within the meaning of
..
Article 311 of the Constitution-Jn the facts and circumstances of the case, he
cannot plead equity nor the Court could examine it, nor he could claim his
G
salary/pension since such right flows from a valid and legal appointment.

Educational Institution-Reservation-Admission against reserved
quota-Non declaration of result 011 completion of the course-Challenge .,,.
to-Held: Since Caste Certificate was cancelled, incumbent cannot be allowed
H 360
R.V. PILLAI v. STATE 361

to take any benefit jlo1ri11g fi"om Caste Certificate-He would be treated as a A
person helonging to general ca1eg01;·-However, non-declaration of result
not going to affect the other party adversely-Hence, result may be declared.

Appellant was appointed as Assistant and later promoted as Deputy
Superintendent of Police against the posts reserved for Scheduled Caste B
allegedly on the basis of false caste certificate. On receipt of a complaint,
State Government ordered anthropological enquiry into the caste status
of the appellant by the Kerala Institute for Research, Training &
Development Studies of Scheduled Caste & Scheduled Tribes (KIRT ADS).
KIRTADS found that the appellant did not belong to Scheduled Caste
community. Later, pursuant to the judgment of the Supreme Court on C
similar issue in Kumari Madhur Patil v. Additional Commissioner, 119941 6
SCC 241, State Government constituted a Scrutiny Committee and
referred the enquiry into the caste status of the appellant to the Committee.
The Committee rejected the claim of the appellant. Aggrieved, appellant
filed a petition which was dismissed by the High Court. The Special leave
Petition and thereafter review petition was dismissed by the Supreme L'
Court.

In the meanwhile, appellant filed 0.A. before the Central
Administrative Tribunal seeking direction to the State Government
restraining them to terminate his services as per the proceedings of the E
Scrutiny Committee and without complying with the conditions laid down
under Article 311 of the Constitution and the provisions of All India
Service (Discipline and Appeal) Rules. Central Administrative Tribunal
allowed the petition. Hence the present appeal.

Son of the appellant (appellant in the connected appeal No.90/2004) F
took admission in a Regional Engineering College against reserved quota.
The Scrutiny Committee, constituted by the State Government, pursuant
to the directions of the Supreme Court in a case on the same issue,
cancelled the community certificate issued to him and consequently his
admission was cancelled. He filed writ petitions for issuance of directions
to the college authorities to permit him to appear in the examination. High G
Court allowed the petitions subject to the condition that result should not
be published without obtaining further orders on the subject. Later, Writ
petition as well as review petition was dismissed by the High Court. Special
leave petition and later review petition was also dismissed by the Supreme
Court. A Civil Miscellaneous Petition was filed by the appellant before H
362 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2004] I S.C.R.

A the High Court and an Interlocutory Application was filed before the
Supreme Court for declaration of his result. High Court dismissed the
petition.

In appeal to this Court, it was contended that decision of the
Constitution Bench of this Court in Kumari Madhuri Patil's case to the
B extent that "admission or appointment can be cancelled without notice to
the candidate" requires to be reconsidered since protection provided under
Article 311 of the Constitution and Rules made thereunder cannot be taken
away by a Judicial pronouncement; and that the appellant was entitled
to Constitutional protection.

c In the connected appeal, it was contended that the appellant had
become ineligible to apply for admission afresh to any other professional
course; and that withholding of examination result would cause him grave
and irreparable hardship.

D Dismissing Cil'il Appeal No. 89 of 2004 and allowing Civil Appeal
No.90 of 2004, the Court

HELD: I.I. The misconduct alleged against the appellant was that
he entered the service against reserved post meant for the Scheduled Caste/
Scheduled Tribe on the basis of a false caste certificate and later promoted
E as Deputy Superintendent of Police against a post reserved for Scheduled
Caste candidate. The Certificate was found to be false and consequently
his appointment was cancelled. This action has been taken not for any
misconduct of the appellant during his tenure as civil servant but on the
finding that he does not belong to the Scheduled Caste as claimed by him
before his appointment to the post. [369-H; 370-A-BI
F
1.2. Jn terms of the safeguards provided in Article 311 of the
Constitution, due opportunity was given to the appellant to put-forth his
point of view and defend himself. The issuance of a fresh notice under the
Rules for proving the same misconduct which has already been examined
G by an independent body constituted under the direction of this Court, the
decision of which has already been upheld upto this Court would he
repetitive as well as futile. [370-E-F[

1.3. The order imposing penalty on the appellant has been passed
by the Central Government as he was an IPS officer. The act or omission
H on the part of the appellant pertains to the period prior to his joining the
R.V. PILLAI v. STATE 363
·~
.,,.
service. Hence, there is no non-compliance of Rules 6 or 7 of the Rules. A
1371-A-BI

.' 1.4. The appellant obtained the appointment in the service on the
basis that.he belonged to a Scheduled Caste community. When it was found
by the Scrutiny Committee that he did not belong to the Scheduled Caste
community, then the very basis of his appointment was taken away. His B
appointment was no appointment in the eyes of law. He cannot claim a
! right to the post as he had usurped the post meant for a reserved candidate
by playing a fraud and producing a false caste certificate. Unless the
appellant can lay a claim to the post on the basis of his appointment he
cannot claim the constitutional guarantee given under Article 311 of the
Constitution. His appointment was void from its inception. It cannot be
c
said that the said void appointment would enable the appellant to claim
that he was holding a civil post within the meaning of Article 311 of the
Constitution of India. He cannot be allowed to take advantage of his own
fraud in entering the service, and claim that he was holder of the post
entitled to be dealt with in terms of Article 311 of the Constitution of India D
or the Rules framed thereunder. 1371-C-Fl

t :>-
Jswar Dayal Sah v. State of Bihar, (1987) Lab. i.e. 390 and Rita Mishra
v. Director, Primmy Education, Bihar, AIR (1988) Patna 26, approved.

1.5. The right to salary or pension after retirement nows from a valid E
and legal appointment. The consequential right of pension and monetary
benefits can be given only if the appointment was valid and legal
appointment. Such benefits cannot be given in a case where the
appointment was found to have been obtained fraudulently and rested on
false caste certificate. 1373-CI
F
'-{
1.6. A person who seeks equity must come with clean hands. He, who
comes to the Court with false claims, cannot plead equity nor the Court
would be justified to exercise equity jurisdiction in his favour. A person
who seeks equity must act in a fair and equitable manner. Equity
jurisdiction cannot be exercised in the case <if a person who got the G
appointment on the basis of false caste certificate by playing a fraud. No
sympathy and equitable consideration can come to his rescue. Hence equity

'" or compassion cannot be allowed to bend the arms of law in a case where
an individual acquired a status by practicing fraud. 1373-EI

I. 7. Keeping in view the fact that the termination order against the H
364 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2004] I S.C.R.

A appellant in the present case was passed subsequent to the order of this
Court in Kumari Madhuri Patil 's case, it cannot be held that the law laid
down in the said case is being applied retrospectively. Procedure/Rule laid
down in Kumari Madhuri Patil's case is being applied to a case in which
fraud was detected after the judgment. 1373-G-H; 374-AI

B Kumari Madhuri Patil v. Additional Commissioner, 1199416 SCC 241,
relied on.

2. The appellant had completed the course of his studies in the year
1996 under the interim orders of this Court which were subject to the final
C orders to be passed in the writ petition. No purpose would be served in
withholding the declaration of the result'ofthe incumbent on the basis of
the examination already taken by him or depriving him of the degree in
case he passes the examination. Hence his result be declared and he be
allowed to take his degree with the condition that he will not be treated
as a Scheduled Caste candidate in future either in obtaining service or
D for any other benefits flowing from the caste certificate obtained by him.
His caste certificate is cancelled. Henceforth, he will be treated as a person
belonging to the general category for all purposes. 1376-H; 377-A-Cf

State of Maharashtra v. Mi/ind and Ors., 120011 I SCC 4, followed.

E Kumari Madhuri Patil v. Additional Commissioner, 1199416SCC241,
relied on.

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 89 of 2004.

From the Judgment and Order dated 28.7.2000 of the Kerala High
F Court in O.P. No. I0840 of 1997.

WITH

(C.A. No. 90 of 2004.)

R.N. Trivedi, Additional Solicitor General, Ranjit Kumar, Kailash
G
Vasdev, E.R. Kumar, P.H. Parekh, K.R. Sasiprabhu, Ms. V. Mohana, Ajay
Agarwal, Ms. Sushma Suri and Shreekant N. Terdol for the appearing parties.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

H BHAN, J. Leave granted.
R.V. PILLAI v. STATE [BHAN . .I.] 365
This judgment shall dispose of both the Civil Appeals bearing Civil A
Appeal No. 89 of 2004 (arising out of SLP ) No. 18503 of 2000) and Civil
Appeal No.90 of 2004 (arising out of SLP) No. 12261 of 2001 ), arisen from
a common order dated 28. 7.2000 passed by the High Court of Kerala. The
former has been filed by R. Vishwanatha Pillai challenging the order of the
High Court wherein the High Court has set aside the order of the Central
Administrative Tribunal in which a direction was issued to the State not to B
remove the appellant from service without complying with the provisions of
Article 311 of the Constitution and the rules framed thereunder. High Cou11
held that the appeflant was not entitled to the protection provided under
Article 311 of the Constitution and the Rules framed thereunder as the appellant
had obtained appointment on the basis of false caste certificate and would be C
deemed not to have been appointed to the service validly ever. The second
appeal has been filed by his son Yimal Ghosh Y. whose admission to the
Regional Engineericg College, Calicut has been cancelled on the basis that
he obtained admission to the College against the seat reserved for a Scheduled
Caste on the basis of false caste certificate. After the passing of the order by
the High Court, an order removing the appellant from service was passed on D
I I. I 0.2000 by the appointing authority.

We shall take up the Civil Appeal No.89 of 2004 (arising from the
SLP) No. 18503 of2000) first and shall deal with the other appeal separately.

In the school record the caste of R. Vishwanatha Pillai (hereinafter E
referred to as "the appellant") was recorded as "Veduvar Pillai". His father
was one Radhakrishna Pillai. He was a "Nair" by caste. His mother's caste
was "Veduvar Pillai". "Nair" as well as "Veduvar Pillai" are forward castes.
The caste of his brother and other two sisters in the school record was also
recorded as belongiug to forward caste. Appellant obtained a community F
,__: certificate on 14.10.1969 fron1 the Tahsildar, Atnbalappuzha stating that he
was a member of the "Vettuvan" community. On the basis of this certificate
he was able to get an appointment as Assistant in the Legislative Secretariat
in the year 1973 against a post reserved for Scheduled Caste. In the year
1977 he was selected as direct recruit to the post of Deputy Superintendent
of Police against a seat reserved for Scheduled Caste on the basis of caste G
certificate obtained by him. He was subsequently promoted and included in
,\ the cadre of Indian Police Service (JPS). The Government of Kerala on the
basis of a complaint received, ordered a full fledged anthropological enquiry
into the caste status of the appellant. It was alleged that the appellant did not
belong to the Scheduled Caste and had usurped the post meant for Scheduled H
366 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2004] I S.C.R.

A Caste. The preliminary investigation was conducted by the Kerala Institute
for Research, Training & Development Studies of Scheduled Caste and
Scheduled Tribes (for short "KIRTADS") which is a department under SC/
ST Development Department which conducts anthropological investigation
into the caste status of individual, whenever it is doubted. The appellant was
B served with a notice. He participated in the enquiry conducted by the
Kl RT ADS and during the enquiry ( 1992) the appellant claimed that he
belonged to "Kuruvan" community which is also a Scheduled Caste community
as per the Scheduled Caste order of Kerala. KIRT ADS after examining both
the oral and documentary evidence submitted a report stating that the appellant
did not belong to Scheduled Caste community, as claimed.
c Pursuant to the judgment of this Court in Kumari Madhuri Patil v.
Additional Commissioner, [ l 994] 6 SCC 241, the Government of Kera la
constituted a Scrutiny Committee by a notification dated 8.5.1995. The enquiry
into the caste status was referred to the said Scrutiny Committee. The appellant
was duly notified by the said Scrutiny Committee. Initially, the appellant
D challenged the authority of the Scrutiny Committee before the High Court
but subsequently participated in the proceedings and entered appearance
through counsel and submitted the documentary evidence in support of his
claim of being Scheduled Caste before the Committee. The appellant submitted
117 documents. The Scrutiny Committee by an order dated 18.11.1995 rejected
E the claim: of the appellant in a well considered and elaborate order. The
appellant challenged the order of the Scrutiny Committee in the High Court
of Kerala in O.P. No. 963 of 1996. The petition was dismissed by the Division
Bench on 26.2.1997 by a reasoned order. The order of the Scrutiny Committee
was upheld. The special leave petition bearing No. 11199 of 1997 filed
against the order of the High Court was dismissed on 1.5.1998. The review
F petition in the order of the SLP was also dismissed on 12.8.1998.

Thereafter, the appellant filed 0.A. No. 340 of 1997 before the Central
Administrative Tribunal (Ernakulam Bench) seeking direction against the
respondents not to terminate the service of the appellant based on the
proceedings of the Scrutiny Committee, and also not to terminate the service
G without satisfying the conditions laid down in Article 311 of the Constitution
of India along with the provisions of All India Service (Discipline and Appeal)
Rules, 1969 (hereinafter refe1Ted to as "the Rules"). The Central Administrative
Tribunal allowed the O.A. on 24.4.1997 and directed that the service of the
appellant be not terminated without following the procedure laid down in
H Article 31 l and also under the Rules. The said decision of the Central
R. V. PILLAI v. STATE [BHAN, J.) 367
Administrative Tribunal was challenged before the High Court of Kerala by A
the State of Kerala in O.P. No. 10840 of 1997.

The High Court by the impugned order accepted the writ petition and
reversed the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal. It was held that the
question regarding the caste status of the appellant stood settled in the earlier
proceedings upto this Court and was no longer debatable. The competent B
authority had found that the appellant did not belong to Scheduled Caste. The
very basis of his appointment was taken away. Since his appointment was no
appointment in the eye of law, the appellant could not claim any right to the
post to which he was appointed on the basis of a false caste certificate
thereby usurping the post meant for a Scheduled Caste. It was held that the C
appellant would not be entitled to the protection provided under Article 311
of the Constitution of India as well as the Rules framed thereunder. The High
Court relied upon the judgment of this Court in Kumari Madhuri Patil 's case
(supra). After the judgment of the High Court the appellant was removed
from service by an order dated 12.10.2000. Aggrieved against the said order
the present appeal has been filed. D
At the admission stage notice was issued on the contention raised by
the counsel for the appellant that the decision of this Court in Kumari Madhuri
Patil 's case (supra) required reconsideration in so far as it directs that
"admission or appointment can be cancelled without notice to the candidate" E
being contrary to the provisions of Article 311 of the Constitution of India.
Later on 19.2.2002 it was suggested to the Court that the order of dismissal
be substituted by an order of compulsorily retiring the appellant or an order
of removal from service to protect the pensionery benefits as he had rendered
about 27 years of service. This was not accepted by the respondents.
..
'-· Shri Ranjit Kumar, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant
F
fairly conceded that the question regarding the validity of the caste certificate
has become final after the dismissal of the Special Leave Petition No. 11199
of 1997 and is no longer debatable.

It was contended on behalf of the appellant that the decision of this G
Court in Kwnari Madhuri Patil 's case (supra) directed that "admission or
appointment can be cancelled without notice to the candidate" requires to be
• reconsidered. According to him the protection under Article 311 of the
' Constitution of India and 'the Rules made thereunder cannot be taken away
by a judicial pronouncement and the appellant would be entitled to the H
368 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2004) I S.C.R.

A constitutional protection provided to him under Article 311 of the Constitution
and the Government was required to comply with the All India Service
(Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1969 before terminating his services.

In Kumari Madhuri Patif's case (supra) the admissions were taken by
two sisters to the professional courses on the basis of false caste certificate
B produced by them, which were cancelled after the report submitted by the
Verification Committee to the effect that the certificates produced by the
appellants therein were false and that the appellants did not belong to the
Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes. The Court observed that all citizens were
to be treated equally. That the Constitution guaranteed to the citizens equality
C before law and the equal protection of law. Though Articles 14 and 15 (I)
prohibit discrimination among citizens but Article 15 (4) empowers the State
to make special provisions for advancement of Scheduled Castes and
Scheduled 'J:rib'es. Article 16( I) requires equality of opportunity to all citizens
in the matters of appointment to an office or a post under the Union or a State
Government or a Public Undertaking etc. But Article 16(4) empowers the
D State to make provision for reservation of appointments or posts in favour of
castes not adequately represented in the services under the State. That the
admission wrongly gained or appointment wrongly obtained on the basis of
false social status certificate necessarily has the effect of depriving the genuine
Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes or OBC candidates as enjoined in the
E Constitution of the benefits conferred on them by the Constitution. Thereafter
the Court laid down the procedure for the grant of social status certificate, its
due verification and the examination by the Scrutiny Committee of its
genuineness. If the certificate was found to be genuine then no further action
was required to be taken but if the caste certificate produced was found to
be false or fraudulently obtained then immediate action was required to be
F tak~n. The findings recorded by the Scrutiny Committee were made final and ..
conclusive which could not b~ challenged in any suit or any proceedings ~·
except in the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The
Scrutiny Committee was required to communicate its report under a registered
cover to the educational institution as well as the appointing authority. The
G educational institution or the appointing authority on receipt of the said report
was required to cancel the admission/appointment without any further notice
to the candidate and debar the candidate from the further study or continue
in office in a post. This was done to simplify the procedure for grant of the
social status certificate as well as its scrutiny, and, if found to be false the
follow-up action to be taken. It was done primarily for quick disposal of such
H matters so that the genuine Schedules Castes and Scheduled Tribes persons
R.V. PILLAI v. STATE [BHAN, J.] 369
_,,,.
are not deprived of the benefits conferred on them under the Constitution of A
India and to debar the non genuine Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes
from taking advantage of the benefit conferred under the Constitution on the
basis of false caste certificate obtained by them by committing a fraud. The
persons who had obtained admission or got the appointment on the basis of
false caste certificate thereby usurping the seat/post reserved for the Scheduled
Castes/Scheduled Tribes were required to be weeded out by prompt action. B
It was held:

"13. The Admission wrongly gained or appointment wrongly
obtained on the basis of false social status certificate necessarily has
the effect of depriving the genuine Scheduled Castes or Scheduled
Tribes or OBC candidates as enjoined in the Constitution of the benefits
c
conferred on them by the Constitution. The genuine candidates are
also denied admission to educational institutions or appointments to
office or posts under a State for want of social status certificate. The
ineligible or spurious persons who falsely gained entry resort to dilatory
tactics and create hurdles in completion of the inquiries by the Scrutiny D
Committee. It is true that the applications for admission to educational
"~ institutions are generally made by a parent, since on that date many
\>
a time the student may be a minor. It is the parent or the guardian
who may play fraud claiming false status certificate. It is, therefore,
necessary that the certificates issued are scrutinised at the earliest and
with utmost expedition and promptitude."
E

Article 311 provides that a member of a civil service of the Union or
the State shall not be dismissed or removed by any authority subordinate to
that by which he was appointed. That the employee shall not be dismissed or
removed or reduced in rank except after an inquiry, in which he has been
,. informed of the charges against him and to give a reasonable opportunity of
F
·~
being heard in respect of those charges. In exercise of the power conferred
by sub-section (I) of Section 3 of the All India Services Act, 1951, the
Central Government, in consultation with the Governments of the States
concerned, framed the All India Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules,
1969. These Rules lay down the detailed procedure as to the manner in which G
the action is required to be taken against a delinquent public servant. Relying
upon the Article 311 and provisions of the Rules, it was contended by Shri
•
' Ranjit Kumar, learned senior counsel for the appellant, that the service of the
appellant could not be terminated without following the procedure laid therein.

We do not find any substance in this submission. The misconduct alleged H
370 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (20041 I S.C.R.

A against the appellant is that he entered the service against reserved post
...
meant for the Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe on the basis of a false caste
certificate. While appointing the appellant as Deputy Superintendent of Police
in the year 1977, he was considered as belonging to the Scheduled Caste.
This was found to be wrong and his appointment is to be treated as cancelled.
This action has been taken not for any misconduct of the appellant during his
B tenure as civil servant but on the finding that he does not belong to the
Scheduled Caste as claimed by him before his appointment to the post. As
to whether the certificate produced by him was genuine or not was examined
in detail by the KIRT ADS and the Scrutiny Committee constituted under the
orders of this Court. Appellant was given due opportunity to defend himself.
c The order passed by the Scrutiny Committee was upheld by the High Court
and later on by this Court. On close scrutiny of facts we find that the safeguards
provided in Article 311 of the Constitution that the Government servant
should not be dismissed or removed or reduced in rank without holding an
inquiry in which he has been given an opportunity to defend himself stands
complied with. Instead of departmental inquiry the inquiry has been conducted
D by the Scrutiny Committee consisting of three officers, namely, (I) an
Additional or Joint Secretary or any officer 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 (Ill) in the case of Scheduled
Castes another officer having intimate knowledge in the verification and
E issuance of the social status certifies, who were better equipped to examine
the question regarding the validity or otherwise of the caste certificate. Due
oppo11unity was given to the appellant to put-forth .his point of view and
defend himself. The issuance of a fresh notice under the Rules for proving
the same misconduct which has already been examined by an independent
body constituted under the direction of this Court, the decision of which has
F already been upheld upto this Cou11 would be repetitive as well as futile, The
second safeguard in Article 311 that the order of dismissal, removal and
' •'
reduction in rank should not be passed by an authority subordinate to that by •
which he was appointed has also been met with. The impugned order
terminating the services of the appellant has been passed by his appointing
G authority.
Rule 6 of the Rules provides the penalties 'major' or 'minor' which can
be awarded to the delinquent officer on being found guilty of misconduct t '
alleged against him. Rule 7( I) provides that where a member of the service
has committed any act or omission, either before his appointment or
H subsequently, which renders him liable to any penalty specified in Rule 6,
R.V. PILLAI'" STATE [BHAN, J.) 371
then, the penalty of dismissal, removal or compulsorily retirement shall not A
be imposed in the case of Central Government employee except by an order
. of the Central Government{Rule 7(2)}. In the present case, the order has
been passed by the Central Government as the appellant was an IPS officer.
The act or omission on the part of the appellant pertains to the period· prior
to his joining the service. There is no non-compliance of Rules 6 or 7 of the B
Rules.

This apart, the appellant obtained the appointment in the service on the
basis that he belonged to a Scheduled Caste community. When it was found
by the Scrutiny Committee that he did not belong to the Scheduled Caste
community, then the very basis of his appointment was taken away. His C
appointment was no appointment in the eyes of law. He cannot claim a right
to the post as he had usurped the post meant for a reserved candidate by
playing a fraud and producing a false caste certificate. Unless the appellant
can lay a claim to the post on the basis of his appointn1e.nt he cannot claim
the constitutional guarantee given under the Article 311 of the Constitution.
As he had obtained the appointment on the basis of a false caste certificate D
he cannot be considered to be a person who holds a post within the meaning
of Article 311 of the Constitution of India. Finding recorded by the Scrutiny
Committee that the appellant got the appointment on the basis o.f false caste
certificate has become final. The position, therefore, is that the appellant has
usurped the post which should have gone to a member of the Scheduled E
Caste. ln view of the finding recorded by the Scrutiny Committee and upheld
upto this Court he has disqualified himself to hold the post. Appointment was
void from its inception. It cannot be said that the said void appointment
would enable the appellant to claim that he was holding a civil post within
the meaning ·of Article 311 of the Constitution of India. As appellant had F
obtained the appointment by playing a fraud he cannot be allowed to take
advantage of his own fraud in entering the service and claim that he was
holder of the post entitled to be dealt with in terms of Article 311 of the
Constitution of India or the Rules framed thereunder. Where an appointment
in a service has been acquired by practising fraud or deceit such an appointment
is no appointment in law, in service and in such a situation Article 311 of the G
Constitution is not attracted at all.

i In lshwar Dayal Sah v. State ofBihar. ( 1987) Lab.LC. 390. the Division
' Bench of the Patna High Court examined the point as to whether a person
who obtained the appointment on the basis of a false caste certificate was
H
372 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2004] I S.C.R.

A entitled to the protection of Article 31 l of the Constitution. In the said case
the employee had obtained appointment by producing a caste certificate that
he belonged to a Scheduled Caste community which later on was found to
be false. His appointment was cancelled. It was contended by the employee
that the cancellation of his appointment amounted to removal from service
within the meaning of Article 31 l of the Constitution and therefore void. It
B was contended that he could not be terminated from service without holding
departmental inquiry as provided under the Rules. Dealing with the above
contention, the High Court held that if the very appointment to the civil post
is vitiated by fraud, forgery or crime or illegality, it would necessarily follow
that no constitutional rights under Article 31 l of the Constitution can possibly
C flow. It was held:

"If the very appointment to civil post is vitiated by fraud, forgery or
crime or illegality, it would necessarily follow that no constitutional
rights under Article 311 can possible flow from such a tainted force.
In such a situation, the question is whether the person concerned is
D at all a civil servant of the Union or the State and if he is not validly
so, then the issue remains outside the purview of Art. 311. If the very
entry or the crossing of the threshold into the arena of the civil
service of the State or the Union is put in issue and door is barred
against him, the cloak of protection under Art. 311 is not attracted."
E The point was again examined by a Full Bench of the Patna High Court
in Rita Mishra v. Director, Prima1y Education, Bihar, AIR (1988) Patna 26.
The question posed before the Full Bench was whether a public servant was
entitled to payment of salary to him for the work done despite the fact that
his letter of appointment was forged, fraudulent or illegal. The Full Bench
F held:

"13. It is manifest from the above that the rights to salary, pension
and other service benefits are entirely statutory in nature in pubic
service. Therefore, these rights including the right to salary, spring
from a valid and legal appointment to the post. Once it is found that
G the very appointment is illegal and is non est in the eye of law. no
statutory entitlement for salary or consequential rights of pension and
other monetary benefits can arise. In pa11icular, if the very appointment
is rested on forgery, no statutory right can flow it.''

We agree with the view taken by the. Patna High Cou1i in the aforesaid
H cases.
R.V. PILLAI v. STA TE [BHAN, J.) 373
-1' It was then contended by Shri Ranjit Kumar, learned senior counsel for the A
appellant that since the appellant has rendered about 27 years of service the
order of dismissal be substituted by an order of compulsory retirement or
removal from service to protect the pensionery benefits of the appellant. We
do not find any substance in this submission, as well. The rights to salary,
pension and other service benefits are entirely statutory in nature in public
service. Appellant obtained the appointment against a post meant for a reserved B
candidate by producing a false caste certificate and by playing a fraud. His
...., appointment to the post was void and non est in the eyes of law. The right
to salary or pension after retirement flow from a valid and legal appointment.
The consequential right of pension and monetary benefits can be given only
if the appointment was valid and legal. Such benefits cannot be given in a
case where the appointment was found to have. been obtained fraudulently
c
and rested on false caste certificate. A person who entered the service by
producing a false caste certificate and obtained appointment for the post
meant for Scheduled Caste thus depriving the genuine Scheduled Caste of
appointment to that post does not deserve any sympathy or indulgence of this
Court. A person who seeks equity must ·come with clean hands. He, who D
comes to the Court with false claims, cannot plead equity nor the Court
.,.
\. . would be justified to exercise equity jurisdiction in his favour. A person who
seeks equity must act in a fair and equitable manner. Equity jurisdiction
cannot be exercised in the case of a person who got the appointment on the
basis of false caste ce1tificate by playing a fraud. No sympathy and equitable E
consideration can come to his rescue. We are of the view that equity or
compassion cannot be allowed to bend the arms of law in a case where an
individual acquired a status by practising fraud.

Another point argued by the learned senior counsel for the appellant
was that the law laid down by this Court in Kumari Madhuri Patil's case F
l .AI (supra) would operate prospectively and could not be applied in the case of
the appellant. We do not find any substance in this submission as well. The
~
judgment in Kumari Madhuri Pad's case (supra) was delivered on 2.9.1994.
Inquiry against the appellant had started in the year 1988 by KIRTADS.
Report of the Inquiry Committee is dated 11.4.1994. Report of the Scrutiny
Committee is dated 18.11.1995. The order of removal from service is dated
G
11.10.2000. Keeping in view the fact that the order was passed subsequent
l
to the order of this Court it cannot be held that the law laid down in Kumari
Madhuri Patil 's case (supra) is being applied retrospectively. Because of this
_, decision cases which were concluded prior to the judgment of the Court are
not being reopened. Procedure/Rule laid down in Kumari Madhuri Patil 's H
374 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2004] 1 S.C.R.
-.,_
A case (supra) is being applied to a case in which fraud was detected after the
judgment.

For the reasons stated above, we do not find any merit in this appeal
and dismiss the same.

B Civil Appeal No. 90 of 2004 (arising from the SLP (C) No. 12261 of
2001)
'4
/

Appellant herein is the son of R. Vishwanatha Pillai, the appellant in '
Civil Appeal No.89 of 2004 (arising from the SLP (C) No. 18503 of 2000).
He was born on I 0.6.1974. His caste was shown as Scheduled caste in the
c school record at the time of admission. He applied for the admission to the
Regional Engineering College at Calicut against a seat reserved for a Scheduled
caste candidate. He was given admission on the basis of the caste ce11ificate
dated 22.6.1992. The Scrutiny Committee constituted under the orders of th is
Court on 18.11.1995 held that the appellant's father did not belong to the
Scheduled caste and cancelled the community certificate issu~d to him.
D Consequently, the caste certificate issued to the appellant was cancelled. On
the basis of the KIRTADS report and the findings of the Scrutiny Committee ,
~
communicated to the Regional Engineering College, Calicut the admission of
the appellant was cancelled and his name was removed from the rolls of the
College.
E
This order was challenged by the appellant in the High Court by filing
a writ petition being O.P. No. 18774 of 1995. In the writ petition the appellant
filed an applicatio:i praying for the issuance of a direction to the College to
permit the appellant to appear for the 6th semester examination which was
to commence on 6.12.1995. On 15.12.1995 the High Court allowed the
F appellant to appear in the 6th semester examination subject to the condition
that result be not published without obtaining further orders from the Court.
Later on, on a similar application filed by the appellant he was allowed to
.,.'

continue the studies in the College and sit for the 7th and 8th semester
examinations. Pursuant to the permission granted by the High Court the
G appellant appeared for 6th, 7th and 8th semester examinations but the result
was not declared. Appellant completed his engineering course in the year
1996.
i

The writ petition filed by the appellant was dismissed by the Division

H
Bench on 26.2.1997. Review Petition No. 174 of 1997 for the review of the
aforesaid order was also dismissed by the Division Bench on 3.7.1997.
•
R.V. PILLAI v. STATE [BHAN, J.] 375
~ Appellant, thereafter, filed Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 13524 of 1997 A
in this Court, which was dismissed on 1.5.1998. Review Petition filed for the
review of the order dated 1.5.1998 was also dismissed on 12.8.1998.
Thereafter, the appellant filed interlocutory application in this Court seeking
declaration of the resu Its of 6th, 7th and 8th semester examinations taken by
him. The said interlocutory application was not entertained by the Registry
of this Court and put up before the Court for orders. B

Thereafter, the appellant filed Civil Misc. Petition No. 30521 of 2000
in O.P. No. 18774 of 1995 in the High Court for direction to the respondents
to publish the results of the 6th, 7th and 8th semester examinations of the
appellant on whatever condition the Court imposed. He moved the application
as he had completed his course in the year 1996 and had appeared in all the
c
examinations though under the orders oft.he Court. It was pleaded by him
that he had become ineligible to apply for admission to any other professional
college as he had become over age. It was further stated by him that he did
not make any false claim as to his caste. Because of his father is declared
Scheduled caste at that time he was issued the caste certificate. That the D
withholding of the appellant's result and consequently his degree would not
' ).. give any materid advantage to the respondent but on the other hand the same
would cause grave and irreparable loss and hardship to the appellant and
would gravely affect his future career. He relied upon two judgments of this
Court, namely, Kwnari Madhuri Patil's case (supra) as well as a Constitution
E
Bench judgment of this Court in State of Maharashtra v. Mi/ind and Ors.,
[200 I] I SCC 4 in which in spite of fact that caste ce11ificate produced by
the candidate was found to be false, the result of the candidate was directed
to be declared with the stipulation that in future the candidate shall not take
any benefit/advantage on the basis of false caste certificate obtained by him/
her. F
\]
We have heard learned counsel for the parties. In Kumari Madhuri
Pati/'s case (supra) the Court while upholding the cancellation of the social
status fraudulently obtained by the candidate allowed her to appear in the
final year examination of the MBBS course with the rider that she would not
be entitled to take any benefit in future on the basis of the social .caste G
certificate obtained by her. It was observed:

• "18. The Delay in the process is inevitable but that factor should
neither be considered to be relevant nor be an aid to complete the
course of study. But for the fact that she has completed the entire
H
376 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2004) I S.C.R.

A course except to appear for the final examination, we would have
directed to debar her from prosecuting the studies and appearing in
the examination. In this factual situation no useful purpose would be
served to debar her from appearing for the examination of final year
MBBS. Therefore, we uphold the cancellation of the social status as
Mahadeo Koli fraudulently obtained by Km Suchita Laxman Patil,
B but she be allowed to appear for the final year examination of MBBS
course. She will not, however, be entitled in future for any benefits on
the basis of the fraudulent social status as Mahadeo Kali. However,
this direction should not be treated and used as a precedent in future
cas1!s to give any similar direction since the same defeats constitutional
c goals."

[Emphasis supplied]

In State of Maharashtra v. Mi/ind and Ors., (supra), a Constitution
Bench of this Court while permitting the candidate to retain the degree obtained
D by him even though his claim as member of the Scheduled Tribe was rejected
observed:
,,.
"Respondent 1 joined the medical course for the year 1985-86. Almost ~
15 years have passed by now. We are told he has already completed
the course and may be he is practising as a doctor. In this view and
E at this length ohime it is for nobody's benefit to annul his admission.
Huge amount is spent on each candidate for completion of joining of
medical course. No doubt, one Scheduled Tribe candidate was deprived
of joining medical course by the admission given to Respondent 1. If
any action is taken against Respondent 1, it may lead to depriving the
service of a doctor to the society on whom public money has already
F
been spent. In these circumstances, this judgment shall not affect the
degree obtained by him and his practising as a doctor. But we make \1
it clear that he cannot claim to belong to the Scheduled Tribe covered
by the Scheduled Tribes Order. ln other words, he cannot take
advantage of the Scheduled Tribes Order any further or for any other
G constitutional purpose. Having regard to the passage of time. in the
given circumstances, including interim orders passed by this Court in
SLP (C) No. 16372 of 1985 and other related affairs, we make it
clear that the admissions and appointments that have become final,
shall remain unaffected by this judgment."
H [Emphasis supplied]
R.V. PILLAI v. STATE (BHAN, J.] 377

In tliis case we find that the appellant had joined the Regional A
Engineering College in the year 1992. He completed the course of his studies
in the year 1996 under the interim orders of this Court which were subject
to the final orders to be passed in the writ petition. No purpose would be
served in withholding the declaration of the result on the basis of the
examination already taken by him or depriving him of the degree in case he B
passes the examination. In terms of the orders passed by the Constitution
Bench of this Court in State of Maharashtra v. Mi/ind and Ors., (Supra) we
direct that his result be declared and he be allowed to take his degree with
the condition he will not be treated as a Scheduled Caste candidate in future
either in obtaining service or for any other benefits flowing from the caste
certificate obtained by him. His caste certificate has been ordered to be C
cancelled. Henceforth, he will be treated as a person belonging to the general
category for all purposes.

For the reasons stated above, the appeal is allowed and the impugned
order dated 15.3.2002 passed by the High Court of Kerala is set aside.
D
S.K.S. C.A. No. 89/04 dismissed.
C.A. No. 90/04 allowed.

·'