Case Law Details
In case of conflict between Rules framed under proviso to Article 309 of Constitution of India and executive instruction, Rules will prevail
1. Invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner herein seeks to challenge legality, validity and correctness of the impugned order dated 19-12-2014 passed by respondent No. 2 Managing Director, Chhattisgarh Hastshilp Vikas Board, by which the petitioner’s services have been dismissed / terminated.
2. Essential facts requisite to judge the correctness of the plea raised at the Bar are as under: –
2.1) The petitioner was appointed on the substantive post of Manager, Hastshilp Vikas Nigam by order dated 7-5-1994 against the reserved category of Scheduled Tribe Halba. His caste certificate was scrutinised by the Caste Scrutiny Committee constituted by the State Government pursuant to the order of the Supreme Court in the matter of Kumari Madhuri Patil and another v. Addl. Commissioner, Tribal Development and others and an order cancelling the caste certificate granted to the petitioner on 9-8-1991 and 20-5-2000 was passed on 25-9-2006.
2.2) The petitioner preferred W.P. No. 6100/2006 before this Court questioning the order passed by the Caste Scrutiny Committee, that writ petition was allowed and the order passed by the Caste Scrutiny Committee was set aside by this Court on 21-10-2010 and the Committee was directed to proceed with the matter in accordance with the decision of the Supreme Court rendered in Madhuri Patil (supra) and Director of Tribal Welfare, Government of A.P. v. Laveti Giri and another and further explained by this Court in the matter of Dinesh Kumar Bhagoria v. State of Chhattisgarh and others. Again the matter was examined by the Caste Scrutiny Committee and the said Committee on 24-1-2012, passed an order maintaining the earlier order and held that the petitioner had obtained incorrect caste certificate of Halba (Hedau) from the Naib Tahsildar, Chhuikhadan, Distt. Rajnandgaon on 9-8-1991 and of Halba (Scheduled Tribe) from the Sub-Divisional Officer, Jagdalpur on 20-5-2000 and therefore his caste certificate is cancelled with immediate effect and the employer can proceed in accordance with law. Therefore, the petitioner made representations on 2-2- 2012 and 16-3-2012 to the State Government claiming promotion after opening sealed envelope for the said post. Meanwhile, respondents No.1 and 2 sought instructions from the Government by memo dated 6-9-2012 with reference to the order dated 24-1-2012 passed by the Caste Scrutiny Committee and the State Government by its memo dated 19-10-2012 held that in accordance with the circular of the State Government dated 1-10-2011, the petitioner’s appointment on the post would not be affected and further he will not be entitled for the benefit of reservation with effect from 28-11-2000. Thereafter, the State Government on 8-5-2013 with reference to the memo dated 22- 4-2013 issued by respondents No.1 and 2, clarified that the Managing Director of Chhattisgarh Hastshilp Vikas Board himself is the competent authority and he can initiate disciplinary proceeding against the petitioner which was reiterated by memo dated 25-4-2013. Thereafter, the petitioner filed W.P.(S) No. 1180/2013 seeking direction to respondents No. 1 and 2 herein to open the closed envelope kept pursuant to the proceedings of the Departmental Promotion Committee dated 21-10-2011 for promotion to the post of General Manager pertaining to the petitioner and W.P.(S)No. 2492/2013 questioning the order dated 8-5-2013 issued by the Government of Chhattisgarh. W.P.(S)No. 1180/2013 was disposed of by order dated 24-11-2014 by this Court holding that the petitioner can move fresh representation depending upon the outcome of the disciplinary enquiry initiated against him pursuant to order dated 8-5-2013 and also holding that the State Government has only directed for initiation of disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner and the authorities of the Board have not passed any final order against the petitioner, pursuant to the order dated 8-5- 2013. However, W.P.(S)No. 2492/2013 was dismissed. Against the common order dated 24-11-2014 passed in W.P.(S) Nos. 1180/2013 & 2492/2013, the petitioner filed W.A. No. 479/2014 and that was also dismissed.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
