SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2024 Supreme(SC) 1193

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA, MANOJ MISRA, JJ.
Union of India & Ors. – Appellants
VERSUS
Rohit Nandan – Respondents
Civil Appeal No(s). 14394 of 2024 (@ SLP (C) No. 18985 of 2023)
Decided On : 13-12-2024

Advocates appeared:
For the Appellant(s) : Mr. K.M.Nataraj, A.S.G. Mr. Amrish Kumar, AOR Ms. Shradha Deshmukh, Adv. Ms. R.Bala, Adv. Ms. Aakanksha Kaul, Adv. Mr. Sarthak Karol, Adv. Mr. Rohit Khare, Adv. Mr. Piyush Beriwal, Adv.
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Anilendra Pandey, Adv. Mr. Rajeev Kumar, Adv. Ms. Priya Kashyap, Adv. Mr. Nadeem Hussain, Adv. M/S. Ranjan And Company, AOR

The State Government lacks authority to alter the Scheduled Caste list, which can only be amended by Parliament, rendering its actions illegal.

Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Article 341 - Scheduled Caste and Other Backward Classes - The Union of India appeals against the High Court's decision allowing the respondent's claim for Scheduled Caste status based on an illegal state notification. The court held that the state had no authority to alter the Scheduled Caste list, reaffirming the principle that such changes must be enacted by Parliament. (Paras 2, 8, 9, 16)

(B) Administrative Law - Jurisdiction of State - The State's action to merge 'Tanti' caste with Scheduled Caste was found to be mala fide and beyond its powers, leading to the restoration of the Central Administrative Tribunal's dismissal of the respondent's application. (Paras 8, 9, 16)

Facts of the case:
The respondent was appointed as a Postal Assistant under OBC category but sought to change his status to Scheduled Caste following a state notification that was later deemed illegal.

Findings of Court:
The court ruled that the respondent could not claim Scheduled Caste benefits due to the illegality of the state notification.

Issues: The main issue was whether the state had the authority to alter the Scheduled Caste list.

Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that only Parliament can amend the Scheduled Caste list, and the state’s actions were illegal.

Result: Appeal allowed, High Court's judgment set aside.

JUDGMENT

PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. The Union of India is in appeal against the judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Patna1 [In CWJC No. 12096 of 2022 dated 19.01.2023] allowing the writ petition filed by the respondent challenging the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal dismissing his Original Application filed against the decision of the Government disentitling his claim under the Scheduled Caste category. Following the recent decision of this Court in Dr. Bhim Rao Ambedkar Vichar Manch Bihar v. State of Bihar, 2024 INSC 528 we have allowed the appeal and directed that the respondent will continue to be of the OBC Category, belonging to Tanti caste and shall not to be treated as Scheduled Caste as per the notification of State Government dated 02.07.2015.

3. The short facts are that the respondent was appointed as a Postal Assistant in the year 1997 under the Other Backward Caste (OBC) Category on the basis of his 'Tanti' Caste Certificate.

4. The State Government vide Gazette Notification dated 02.07.2015 deleted 'Tanti' caste from the list of OBCs to enable members of the said community to avail benefits of Scheduled Caste (SC) category by merging it with Pan/Swasi caste which figures in the list of Scheduled Castes.

5. Following the gazette notification, the respondent obtained a Scheduled Caste certificate as member of the Pan/Swasi caste from the office of District Magistrate, Patna on 29.09.2015 and requested the Chief Post Master General, Patna on 23.06.2016 for change of his category from OBC to Scheduled Caste in his Service Book in terms of the new caste certificate and the aforesaid Gazette notification. In the meanwhile, the respondent applied for promotion to the Postal Service Group ‘B’ through Limited Departmental Competitive Examination (LDCE) as notified on 07.10.2016, as a Scheduled Caste candidate and appeared in the examination held on 18.12.2016. Though he was declared successful in the examination vide communication dated 16.04.2018, his name was not approved for promotion and his result was put on hold for further consideration vide notification dated 06.09.2018. Meanwhile, the office of the Postmaster General, East Region, Bihar, ordered on 17.08.2018 to change the category of respondent to Scheduled Caste in his Service Book.

6. Finally, the Department of Posts, after consulting the Department of Social Justice and Empowerment, ordered vide communication dated 14.02.2019 that the respondent was not entitled to the benefit of Scheduled Caste category as he does not belong to scheduled caste and deleted his name from the list of candidates successful in the examination. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order dated 14.02.2019, the respondent filed OA/050/00289/2019 before the Central Administrative Tribunal, which was dismissed on 01.04.2022.

7. The decision of the Tribunal was challenged before the High Court in a Writ Petition and the High Court allowed the same on 19.01.2023 by the order impugned before us. The High Court proceeded on the following premise:

    “9. It is not a case that the State Government has amended the Presidential order without any authority of law and has included a particular caste in the category of Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe, but the State Government has only deleted one of the most backward castes from the State list on account of the fact that it is a Scheduled Caste already notified in the Presidential order and, therefore, to enable them to take the benefit of the Presidential order the circular has been issued as a clarification .

    10. Moreover, the petitioner has been issued a caste certificate of SC category by a competent authority and the same has not been challenged or cancelled. Hence, for all practical purposes, the petitioner is a person belonging to the SC category.

    11. In the light of discussion made hereinabove and under the facts and circumstances of the case, the present writ petition deserves to be al

    Click Here to Read the rest of this document
    1
    2
    3
    4
    5
    6
    7
    8
    9
    10
    11
    SupremeToday Portrait Ad
    supreme today icon
    logo-black

    An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

    Please visit our Training & Support
    Center or Contact Us for assistance

    qr

    Scan Me!

    India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

    For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

    whatsapp-icon Back to top