The Bombay High Court has clarified that government appointments under reserved categories cannot be withheld merely because the tribe validity certificate is pending verification. While allowing the petitioner to resume duties, the Court imposed costs for suppression of material facts, establishing that clean hands principle applies even in service matters where constitutional rights are involved.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioner, a Graduate Engineer Trainee appointed under the Scheduled Tribe category, was denied resumption of duties after completing his training period. The respondents cited a clause in the appointment order requiring submission of a tribe validity certificate. The petitioner's tribe claim verification was pending before the Scrutiny Committee since March 2025.
Procedural History
The case reveals a complex procedural background:
- 08.07.2022: Petitioner's earlier tribe claim rejected by Scrutiny Committee
- 05.07.2024: Petitioner appointed as Graduate Engineer Trainee
- 25.03.2025: Fresh verification proposal submitted to Scrutiny Committee
- 01.09.2025: Petitioner completes training but denied duty resumption
- 2025: Writ Petition No. 2647 filed challenging 2022 rejection (later withdrawn)
Relief Sought
The petitioner sought:
- Interim relief to resume duties pending verification
- Direction to Scrutiny Committee to decide the verification proposal within reasonable time
- Writ of mandamus against respondents for allowing duty resumption
The Legal Issue
The central questions before the Court were:
- Whether government appointments under reserved categories can be withheld pending tribe validity verification
- Whether the clean hands doctrine applies to service matters involving constitutional rights
- What equities can be claimed by a candidate whose tribe validity is under challenge
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
The petitioner's counsel relied on three key precedents:
- Shrikant Chandrakant Saindane v. State of Maharashtra (2012(1) Mh.L.J.787) establishing that appointments cannot be withheld for non-submission of tribe validity certificates
- Saima Parveen Mohd. Khan v. Municipal Corporation, Akola (2014 SCC Online Bom.3836) reinforcing the principle of not penalizing candidates for administrative delays
- Kum. Rajeshri Parmeshwar Gampalwad v. State of Maharashtra ((2017) 6 AIR Bom R 696) on the rights of reserved category appointees
For the Respondents
The respondents contended:
- The petitioner suppressed material facts about his earlier rejected tribe claim
- The appointment was obtained without disclosing the 2022 rejection order
- The petitioner's conduct disentitled him to any equitable relief
- The appointment clause explicitly required tribe validity certificate submission
The Court's Analysis
The Court conducted a multi-pronged analysis:
- Precedent Application: The bench examined the three cited judgments and found they established a consistent principle that appointments under reserved categories cannot be withheld merely because tribe validity verification is pending. The Court observed:
"We find that the appointment of the petitioner cannot be withheld for non-submission of tribe validity certificate."
-
Constitutional Rights Consideration: The judgment emphasized that reservation benefits are constitutional rights that cannot be denied due to administrative delays in verification processes.
-
Clean Hands Doctrine: While recognizing the petitioner's right to resume duties, the Court applied the clean hands principle from equity jurisprudence. The bench noted:
"Before parting, the conduct of the petitioner cannot be lost sight of as admittedly, the petitioner came to be appointed on 05.07.2024. His earlier tribe claim was already rejected on 08.07.2022."
- Balancing Equities: The Court carefully balanced the public interest in proper verification of tribe claims against the individual's right to employment. The conditional relief granted reflects this balancing:
"The service of the petitioner shall not be confirmed by the Respondent No.4 till the decision of his tribe claim and he would not be eligible for any further service benefits except his salary until his tribe claim is validated."
- Procedural Fairness: The judgment underscores that administrative processes must not become tools to deny constitutional rights, while simultaneously ensuring that fraudulent claims are deterred through appropriate costs.
The Verdict
The Writ Petition was allowed with costs. The Court directed:
- The petitioner to deposit Rs.25,000 as costs within two weeks
- The Scrutiny Committee to decide the verification proposal within six months
- The petitioner to be allowed to resume duties within three weeks, but without confirmation or benefits until tribe validity is established
- The appointment to remain subject to final outcome of the tribe claim verification
What This Means For Similar Cases
Appointments Cannot Be Withheld Pending Verification
Practitioners should note:
- Government departments cannot deny duty resumption merely because tribe validity verification is pending
- Training completion creates a strong case for interim relief
- Administrative delays in verification processes cannot be used to deny employment rights
Clean Hands Principle Applies To Service Matters
- Full disclosure of previous verification attempts is mandatory
- Suppression of material facts may lead to costs even if relief is granted
- Delayed challenges to rejection orders (3 years in this case) weaken equitable claims
Conditional Relief Is The New Norm
The judgment establishes a three-part conditional relief framework for similar cases:
- Interim duty resumption pending verification
- No confirmation or benefits until validity is established
- Appointment subject to final outcome of verification process
Practitioners should:
- Argue for salary continuation during verification periods
- Prepare clients for possible costs if material facts were suppressed
- Advise on strategic timing of verification challenges to avoid equitable bars
