Neither State Governments Nor Courts Have The Authority To Modify The List Of Scheduled Castes As Promulgated By The Presidential Order: SC
|The Supreme Court reiterated that neither the State Government nor the Courts have the authority to modify the list of Scheduled Castes as promulgated by the Presidential order.
The Court noted this while dealing with an appeal in which the issue arose was whether a person who joined the services of a Nationalized Bank/Government of India undertaking based on a certificate that identified him/her as belonging to a Scheduled Caste(‘SC’)/Scheduled Tribe(‘ST’) in the State of Karnataka, pursuant to the State Government's notifications, would be entitled to retain the position after the caste/tribe has been de-scheduled.
The Bench of Justice Hima Kohli and Justice Sandeep Mehta observed, “As held by the Constitution Bench in Milind(supra), any inclusion or exclusion in or from the list of Scheduled Castes can only be made through an Act of Parliament under Articles 341 and 342 of the Constitution of India. As a corollary thereto, neither the State Government nor the Courts have the authority to modify the list of Scheduled Castes as promulgated by the Presidential order under the above Articles.."
Advocate K V Dhananjay appeared for the Appellants whereas Senior Advocate Dhruv Mehta appeared for the Respondents.
Appellants were employed by the Canara Bank-Respondent No.1-Bank in the Scheduled Castes Category based on Caste Certificates, certifying that they belonged to the 'Kotegara' community, a synonymous caste which was made equivalent to the caste called ‘Kotegar Matri’ (included in the Scheduled Castes list) by a Government circular dated November 21, 1977, issued by the State of Karnataka.
The Apex Court in its judgment in State of Maharashtra v. Milind and Ors (2001) had held that the State Government has no authority to amend or modify the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes list published under Articles 341 and 342 of the Constitution of India. A caste can only be classified as a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe or a Socially and Educationally Backward Caste when the Presidential Order is issued to that effect in exercise of the powers prescribed under Articles 341, 342, and 342A of the Constitution of India respectively.
Pursuant to this judgment, the Ministry of Finance, Department of Economic Affairs(Banking Division), Government of India in consultation with the Ministry of Welfare vide letter dated 12th March 1987, declared the State of Karnataka circulars which included the ‘Kotegara’ caste in the list of Scheduled Castes in the State of Karnataka to be non-est.
The Karnataka Government had issued a circular providing protection to individuals employed in State services who had obtained Caste Certificates based on a synonymous caste under the Government circulars, issued by the State. The said circular had also provided that such candidates would not be eligible for future promotions or any other benefits as SCs/STs, although they could claim benefits under the respective Backward Classes to which they belonged.
Although the ‘Kotegara’ community was not included in this circular, a subsequent circular was issued by the State, extending the benefits of the circular to individuals belonging to the communities, who had obtained Caste Certificates in accordance with the earlier Government circulars.
The Caste Certificates held by the Appellants were cancelled by the District Caste Verification Committee, and this decision was communicated to their respective employers. Subsequently, criminal proceedings were initiated against some of the Appellants, however, these proceedings were quashed by the High Court.
Respondent No. 2 i.e., Additional Director General of Police, Directorate of Civil Rights Enforcement Cell, intimated the bank to terminate the services of the appellants on the ground that they had secured employment based on fake Caste Certificates. In turn, the bank issued notices to the appellants calling upon them to show cause as to why their services should not be terminated. The appellants challenged the aforesaid notices by filing writ petitions before the High Court of Karnataka which came to be rejected.
Being aggrieved by the dismissal of their writ petitions, the appellants preferred intra-court writ appeals before the learned Division Bench of the High Court against the order of the learned Single Judge. The Division Bench of the High Court dismissed the intra-court appeals. Hence, the present Appeal was filed.
It was noted that the above Office Memorandum was issued in ignorance of the Government of Karnataka’s circular, which further extended the protection granted by the earlier Government circular to the communities. Further, this Government circular completely escaped the notice of the Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment, Government of India while issuing the Office Memorandum.
On this fulcrum, the Court observed, “Clearly thus, the Office Memorandum suffers from the vice of non-consideration of a vital document being the circular dated 29th March 2003 issued by the Government of Karnataka. Hence, we have no hesitation in holding that the Office Memorandum dated 8th July, 2013, cannot supersede the communication dated 17th August 2005 issued by the Ministry of Finance and the same cannot be read to the prejudice of the appellants.”
The court therefore held: "We conclude that the appellants are entitled to protection of their services by virtue of the Government circular dated 29th March, 2003 issued by the Government of Karnataka as ratified by communication dated 17th August, 2005 issued by the Ministry of Finance. The circular dated 29th March, 2003 issued by the Government of Karnataka specifically extended protection to various castes, including those which were excluded in the earlier Government circular dated 11th March, 2002. This subsequent circular covered the castes such as Kotegara, Kotekshathriya, Koteyava, Koteyar, Ramakshathriya, Sherugara, and Sarvegara, thus, ensuring that individuals of these castes, holding Scheduled Castes Certificates issued prior to de-scheduling, would be entitled to claim protection of their services albeit as unreserved candidates for all future purposes. Additionally, the communication issued by the Ministry of Finance dated 17th August, 2005 reinforced the protective umbrella to the concerned bank employee.."
Accordingly, the Court, while allowing the appeals, set aside the impugned judgment and terminated the show cause notice issued by the Respondent-Bank.
Cause Title: K Nirmala & Ors. v. Canara Bank & Anr. (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 634)
Appearances:
Appellants: Advocates K V Dhananjay, AORs A Velan, Vikash Chandra Shukla, Advocates Dheeraj S J, Navpreet Kaur, Seetharaman Venkat, Aishvary Vikram,
Tarun Gulia, Ajay Awasthi, Siddhartha Relan, Mukul Rathor, Bhuvan Shekhar, Ali Sardar Zaidi and Lucky Sharma.
Respondents: Senior Advocate Dhruv Mehta, AORs Rajesh Kumar Gautam, M/S. Khaitan & Co., Nirmal Kumar Ambastha, D. L. Chidananda, V. N. Raghupathy, Advocates Anant Gautam, Samir Mudgil, Dinesh Sharma, Kavitoli G Yeptho, Likivi Jakhalu, Kushagra Nilesh Sahay, Vanita Bhargava, Arvind Ray and Mythili S.