The State cannot reopen or retrospectively withdraw service protection for employees if the inter-se dispute regarding such protection attained judicial finality prior to the legal principles established in the Supreme Court's decision in Jagdish Balaram Bahira.

Order on Board

1. In these batch of writ petitions, the petitioners have challenged the order dated 17.09.2021 issued by the State Government whereby (i) the decision has been taken to withdraw service protection extended to the petitioners, Circular dated 02.09.2021; (ii) the decision taken by the State Government to delete the names of the petitioners from respective seniority list of general category; (iii) the order passed by the respondents whereby representation(s) made by the petitioners have been rejected and (iv) the order dated 01.06.2021 whereby directions have been issued to reopen the cases and to withdraw the protection.

2. The facts, in nut shell, are that the petitioners were appointed on various posts as candidates of reserved category of Scheduled Tribe (Halba). The petitioners were discharging their duties peacefully, but subsequently The High Power Certification Scrutiny Committee invalidated their social status certificates, but at the same time, service protection was extended, but it was also observed the petitioners would not get benefit of their social status in future according to Circular dated 01.10.2011. The State Government took decision to withdraw the protection extended to the petitioner and other similarly government servants on 11.01.2016. The petitioners as well as other aggrieved persons filed WPS No. 147/2016 and connected matters before the High Court. The issue involved in those writ petitions was that as to whether the service protection granted by the High Power Certification Scrutiny Committee pursuant to Circular dated 01.10.2011 can be withdrawn by subsequent Circular with retrospective effect ? The High Court vide order dated 01.07.2016 held that the Circular dated 11.01.2016 is bad in law and further held that the petitioners would be entitled for service protection extended by the High Power Certification Scrutiny Committee. It was also held that the observation made by the High Power Certification Scrutiny Committee attained finality in the light of judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Kumari Madhuri Patil and another Vs. Addl. Commissioner, Tribal Development and others , (1994) 6 SCC 241 and Dayaram Vs. Sudhir Batham and others , (2012) 1 SCC 333. The common judgment passed in WPS No. 147/2016 and connected matters was challenged in Writ Appeal No. 531/2016 and connected matters . The Hon’ble Division Bench vide order dated 14.02.2017 held that the petitioners are entitled to be retained in service but with effect from 28.11.2000 and they would be treated as general category candidates and would not be entitled to claim any further benefits of belonging to the Scheduled Tribe category. The State challenged the said order by filing SLP (Civil) No. 23294/2018 and it was dismissed vide order dated 06.08.2018. The protection was granted to the petitioners pursuant to Circular dated 01.10.2011 and said protection was withdrawn vide Circular dated 11.01.2016 and it was the subject matter of WPS No. 147/2016. In said writ petition, the Circular dated 11.01.2016 was held to be bad in law. The State Government restored the Circular dated 11.01.2016 vide Circular dated 03.06.2020 and further issued direction to reopen the cases where the government servants have obtained social status certificates on account of misrepresentation or by playing fraud. The State Government vide Circular dated 02.09.2021 withdrew the Circular dated 03.06.2020 and restored Circular dated 11.01.2016. The names of t