Holding

The Court held that the respondent was appointed to a Scheduled Tribe‑reserved post, his community certificate was bogus, Lambadi is not a Scheduled Tribe under the Constitution Order, and therefore the High Court’s order setting aside his termination was unsustainable.

Summary

The respondent, a railway employee, was appointed to a post reserved for Scheduled Tribes on the basis of a community certificate claiming he belonged to the Malayalee Scheduled Tribe. The certificate was later found to be bogus, leading to his removal from service. The respondent later contended that he actually belonged to the Hindu Lambadi caste, which he claimed was a Scheduled Tribe in Tamil Nadu, relying on a letter from the Director of the District Welfare Office. The Madras High Court accepted this letter and set aside the termination order. On appeal, the Supreme Court held that the appointment was indeed for a Scheduled Tribe post, the certificate was false, and Lambadi is not listed as a Scheduled Tribe under the Constitution (Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes) Order, 1950; consequently, the High Court’s reliance on the welfare letter was misplaced and its order was unsustainable. The appeal was allowed, reinstating the termination.

Issues considered

Whether the respondent was appointed to a post reserved for Scheduled Tribes and thus required to produce a valid community certificate.
Whether the Lambadi community is included in the list of Scheduled Tribes for Tamil Nadu under the Constitution (Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes) Order, 1950.
Whether a letter from the Director of the District Welfare Office can be treated as conclusive evidence of inclusion of a community in the Scheduled Tribes list.
Whether the High Court erred in setting aside the termination order based on the aforesaid letter.

Subjects

service lawterminationscheduled tribecommunity certificatereservationfalse certificaterailway serviceconstitutional orderwelfare department letterhigh court reversal

Judgment

f
[2008] 2 S.C.R. 604

~
.....
A UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
II.
S. KRISHNAN & ANR.
(Civil Appeal No. 1103 of 2008)
FEBRUARY 8, 2008
B
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND S.H. KAPADIA, JJ.]
t-
.._
Service Law: Termination - Appointment of employee
claiming to be member of Scheduled tribe-Malayalee
c Community - Termination of, for producing false community
certificate - Subsequently employee's case that he belonged
to Lambadi Community, a Scheduled Tribe, relying on the letter
of Director of Welfare Officer - Accepted by High Court and
\
termination order set aside - Sustainability of - Held: Not
· sustainable since employee applied as a member of
D
Scheduled Tribe, Malayalee Community and was appointed _..._
in respect of a post earmarked for Scheduled Tribes -
Community certificate was false - More so, Lambadi was not )..

part of Scheduled Tribes - High Court wrongly relied on the
letter as it was in the nature of recommendation and did· not
E relate to any entry in the Constitution (Scheduled Castes and
Scheduled Tribes) Order, 1950.
The respondent was appointed in the Railway
Department. He claimed to be a member of Scheduled
F Tribe, Malayalee Community. He was removed from
service for producing a false community certificate. >
Meanwhile, respondent filed an application for declaration
that he belonged to the Malayalee Community. The
respondent challenged the termination otder and order
of compulsory retirement was passed. Respondent then
G
filed a writ petition on the ground that he belonged to
Hindu Lambadi caste which is a Scheduled Tribe. High
>,-
Court relying on the letter of Director of District Welfare
that Lambadi is a Scheduled Tribe in the State of Tamil

H 604
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. v. S. KRISHNAN & ANR. 605

.... ~ Nadu heid that the respondent belonged to Scheduled A
Tribe and set aside the termination order. Hence the
present appeal.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.1 It appears from the appointment order of B
the respondent that he was appointed in respect of a post
earmarked for Scheduled Tribes. With regard to the
~
.) respondent's plea that he was appointed as a general
category candidate and not a member of the Scheduled
Tribe, if in reality the respondent was appointed in respect c
of a post belonging to the general category, there was no
need for filing a Community Certificate. Further, there was
also no need for seeking a declaration that he belongs to
the Malayalee Community. From the records produced it
is crystal clear that the respondent applied as a member
of the Scheduled Tribe claiming to be a member of the 0'
.J.. Malayalee Community. The Community Certificate
produced was found to be bogus. That essentially is the
.....
end of the matter. His further stand that though he may
not belong to the Malayalee Community, he belongs to
Lambadi Community is really of no consequence. The E
document referred to by the counsel for the State giving
details of the communities belonging to the Scheduled
Castes and Scheduled Tribes clearly falsifies the claim of
the respondent that Lambadi Community w~s a part of
the Scheduled Tribes. The document was issued under F
the Constitution (Scheduled Castes and Scheduled
Tribes) Order, 1950 as amended subsequently. [Para 7]
[608-F, G; 609-A, 8, C]
1.2 There is no scope for making any alteration by
way of addition or deletion from the Entry made in the G
......
Constitution Order. The High Court clearly misdirected
itself on relying on the letter of the Director of Welfare
'
Office. A bare look at it goes to show that the same was
~ really not relatable to any Entry in the Constitution
(Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes) Order but at H
-).

606 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 2 S.C.R.

A the most was in the nature of a recommendation. Thus, ~ ·~
the order of High Court is unsustainable and is set aside.
[Paras 8 and 9] [609-0, E, F] "

Pa/ghat Ji/la Thandan Samudhaya Sarriithi and Anr.
1994 SCC 359; State of Maharashtra vs. Mi/ind and Ors. 2000
B
(5) Suppl. SCR 651 - relied on.
CIVILAPPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1103
of 2008. .t
From the Judgment and Order dated 17.08.2005 of the
c High Court of Judicature at. Madras in Writ Petition No. 24911
of 2001.
Ashok Bhan, T.A. Khan, B.K. Prasad and D.S. Mahra for
the Appellants.
D A.K. Ganguli and R. Sudaravardan, P.R. Kovilan
Poongkuntran, Naresh Kumar, S. Joseph Aritstotle, S. Prabhu ..A.
Ramasubramanian and V.G. Pragasam for the Respondents.
)...

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
E Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. 1. Leave granted.
2. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of a Division
Bench of the Madras High Court allowing the writ petition filed
against the order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal,
Chennai (in short, 'the Tribunal').
F
3. Background facts, in a nutshell, are as follows:
>
The rdspondent was appointed as· Gangman by the
Railway Department in the year 1.976. He claimed to be a
member of Scheduled Tribe, i.e., Malayalee Community. After (
G
he joined service, he was directed to produce the Community
Certificate. The Deputy Tehsildar, Dharmapuri, issued a ~·

certificate on 16.8.1976. In the year 1991, the General Manager,
)-
Southern Railway, Dharampuri requested the District Collector
of the District to verify the respondent's Community Certificate.
H
~-

UNION OF INDIA & ORS. v. S. KRISHNAN & ANR. 607
[PASAYAT, J.]
\.,
.... The Collector sent a report stating th2t the Community Certificate A
filed by the respondent was a bogus one and cancelled the
same. After receipt of the report, charge sheet was issued and
departmental inquiry was conducted. During pendency of the
departmental inquiry, respondent filed a Civil Suit in the District
Munsif Court, Dharampuri, i.e., O.S.No.4/1998, for decree of B'
declaration that he belonged to Malayalee Community. In the
suit, a prayer was made for direction for production of the original
~
.. community certificate. The Inquiry Officer closed the inquiry and
submitted his report on the basis of which order of removal from
· service was passed on 23.12.1998. A challenge was made to c
the said order by filing an Original Application, i.e., O.A.No.1156/
1999. The same was disposed of with the observation that if a
departmental appeal is preferred, the same shall be disposed
of within a particular time. Since the appellate authority
dismissed the appeal, a revision was filed. As, according to the
D
respondent, there was some delay in disposal of the revision
..\. petition, again the Tribunal was moved in O.A.No.832/2000. By
~
. order dated 28. 7.2000, the Tribunal directed the Revisional
Authority to pass the order within a particular time. The
Revisional Authority modified the order of removal from service
to one of compulsory retirement with effect from 23.12.1998. E
Another Original Application, i.e., O.A.No.1403/2000, was filed
before the Tribunal which was dismissed.
4. The stand of the respondent in the writ petition was that
though the controversy was whether he belonged to a Scheduled F
Tribe, i.e. Malayalee Community, he, in fact, belonged to Hindu
Lambadi caste which comes within Scheduled Tribes. Reliance
was placed on certain communications, more particularly, the
\ letter dated 3.2.1971 of the Director of Welfare Officer's Office,
9i Vellore where it was accepted that throughout the State except
G
Kanyakumari district and anotherTaluk, Lambadi (Sugalis) was
1- considered as Scheduled Tribe. The appellants, Union of India
~I
and State of Tamil Nadu, opposed the Writ Petition stating that
Lambadi community does not come under Scheduled Tribes
and, in fact, the respondent having obtained employment in
H
608 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 2 S.C.R.

A respect of the post earmarked for ScheduledTribes, he cannot ~ ~
take the plea that he belongs to Lambadi community, which is
at variance with his earliei claim.
5. The High Court, placing reliance on the letter of the
Director of District Welfare, referred to above, came to hold
B that the respondent belonged to Scheduled Tribe and, therefore,
the orders passed by the departmental authorities were set
aside. It is to be noted that during the course of the hearing of
this appeal, the learned counsel for the respondent took the
t
stand that the respondent was appointed as a general category
c candidate and not as a member of the Schedul~d Tribe and,
therefore, it hardly matters whether he belongs to Scheduled
Tribe or not.
6. The stand of the learned counsel for the Union of India
and the State of Tamil Nadu is that Lambadi is not a Scheduled
D
Tribe in the State of Tamil Nadu. In any event, it is not factually
correct, as contended by the respondent, that he was appointed ~
as general category candidate. Learned counsel for the State ),,..

of Tamil Nadu has filed Order No.1773 of the Social Welfare
Department, dated 23.6.1994, giving details of the communities
E belonging to the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. With
reference to the same, learned counsel for the State submitted
that Lambadi is not a Scheduled Caste.
7. Pursuant to the directions of this Court, the original
F service records of the respondent were produced. It appears
from the appointment order that he was appointed in respect of >-
a post earmarked for Scheduled Tribes. If in reality the
respondent was appointed in respect of a post belonging to the
general category, there was no need for filing a Community
r-
Certificate. Further, there was also no need for seeking a
G
declaration that he belongs to the Malayalee Community. From
the records produced it is crystal clear that the respondent ·~
applied as a member of the Scheduled Tribe claiming 'o be a
member of the Malayalee Community. The Community '>-
Certificate produced was found to be bogus. That essentially is
H
t-
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. v. S. KRISHNAN & ANR. 609
[PASAYAT, J.]
... • \
the end of the matter. His further stand that though he may not A
belong to the Malayalee Community, he belongs to Lambadi
Community is really of no consequence. Even then, it needs to
be noted that the document referred to by learned counsel for
the State giving details of the communities belonging to the
Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes clearly falsifies the B
•
•
claim of the respondent that Lambadi Community was a part of
'
the Scheduled Tribes. The document referred to by learned
-<_..
counsel for the State of Tamil Nadu was issued under the

. Constitution (Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes) Order,
1950 (in short, 'the Constitution Order'), as amended c
subsequently. The same clearly shows, as noted above, that
Lambadi was not part of the Scheduled Tribes.
8. As has been obseNed by this Court in Pa/ghat Ji/la
Thandan Samudhaya Samithi & Anr. v. State of Kera/a & Anr.
(1994) SCC 359), and State of Maharashtra Vs. Mi/ind & Ors. D

_.
_
. (2000) 5 (Suppl) SCR 651 ), there is no scope for making any
alteration by way of addition or deletion from the Entry made in
the Constitution Order. The High Court clearly misdirected itself
on relying on the letter dated 3.2.1971 of the Director of Welfare
Office. A bare look at it goes to show that the same was really E
not relatable to any Entry in the Constitution Order but at the
most was in the nature of a recommendation as has been rightly
contended by learned counsel for the State of Tamil Nadu.

9. Looking at from any angle, the impugned order of the
High Court is clearly unsustainable and is set aside. F
""" 10. The appeal is allowed without any order as to costs.
~ N.J. Appeal allowed.

G
'!!!!f
• "'