Arijit Pasayat, J.— Leave granted.
2. Challenge in this appeal is to the order passed by a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court, Nagpur Bench, Nagpur. The respondent had secured employment in the Life Insurance Corporation of India (hereinafter referred to as “LIC”), the appellant in this appeal, on the basis that he belongs to the Scheduled Tribe. Undisputedly, his caste was recorded as Halba. The Committee for Scrutiny and Verification of Tribe Claims, Amaravati vide its order dated 30-4-2004 held that the respondent's claim of belonging to the Scheduled Tribe was wrong, unfounded and was a fraudulent claim. The order was questioned by the respondent before the High Court by filing a writ petition. Before the High Court, learned counsel for the writ petitioner submitted that the writ petitioner was willing to file an undertaking to the effect that he will not claim any benefit on the basis of his caste as Halba either in his service or anywhere else at any time for himself as well as for his legal heirs. With reference to a judgment of this Court in State of Maharashtra v. Milind (2001) 1 SCC 4 the High Court held that in view of the undertaking the writ petitioner's services were not to be terminated notwithstanding the invalidation order passed by the Scrutiny Committee.
3. Learned counsel for LIC submitted that the approach of the High Court is clearly erroneous. In Milind case (2001) 1 SCC 4 this Court never laid down any principle of law having universal application. The observations in para 38 of the judgment were limited to the peculiar facts of the case. The High Court erroneously proceeded on the basis that the decision laid down a rule of universal application.
4. In response, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the respondent had already rendered about 14 years of uninterrupted and blemishless service and merely because he could not establish his Scheduled Tribe claim, the benefit already granted should not have been withdrawn. It was pointed out that the undertaking in the lines noted by the High Court had already been filed.
5. This Court in R. Vishwanatha Pillai v. State of Kerala (2004) 2 SCC 105 and Lillykutty v. Scrutiny Committee, SC & ST (2005) 8 SCC 283 has considered the effect of non-genuine certificates in the case of Scheduled Castes' and Scheduled Tribes' claims.
6. The protection under Milind case (2001) 1 SCC 4 cannot be extended to Respondent 1 employee as the protection was given under the peculiar factual background of that case. The employee concerned was a doctor and had rendered long years of service. This Court noted that on a doctor public money has been spent and, therefore, it will not be desirable to deprive the society of a doctor's service. Respondent 1 employee in the present case is an LIC employee and the factor which weighed with this Court cannot be applied to him.
7. The above position was elaborated in Bank of India v. Avinash D. Mandivikar (2005) 7 SCC 690.
8. It is noted that in spite of six opportunities Respondent 1 did not appear before the Scrutiny Committee. That being the position the Scrutiny Committee had no other option than to take a decision in the matter. We also find that the Scrutiny Committee referred to documents which were before it and came to the conclusion about the claim of Respondent 1 being not genuine.
9. In Milind case (2001) 1 SCC 4 filing of the undertaking was not to be treated as the ratio of the judgment. Before us it was urged on behalf of Respondent 1 that in the State of Maharashtra at the relevant time there were resolutions/government orders which made the respondent believe that there was no fraudulent intention in claiming to be Halba. Mr Lalit, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that none of these aspects (including various GRs) have been considered. The High Court in the present case proceeded on the basis as if mere filing of an undertaking in the line suggested by the writ petitioner was sufficient to bring the case under the umbrella of the decision in Milind case (2001) 1 SCC 4. That is clearly not so.
10. As the High Court has not considered the matter in its proper perspective, except relying on Milind case (2001) 1 SCC 4 we think it appropriate to remit the matter to the High Court for a fresh consideration on merits of the case on the grounds, if any, without being influenced by any observation in this order.
11. The appeal is allowed to the aforesaid extent without any order as to costs.