Back
Rules Vested for Life Even If Caste Excluded: EPFO
Ahmedabad, – In a landmark decision that fortifies the permanence of , the has held that a person belonging to a at the time of birth, or one who has lawfully availed , cannot be divested of those rights midway through life—even if the caste is later excluded from the . The ruling came in a case where the had reverted its own employee after the was .
A of Justice N.S. Sanjay Gowda and Justice J.L. Odedra quashed the of Ranjit Vasantlal Makwana , who had been promoted as Enforcement Officer in 2003 when his caste was recognised as SC, but was pushed back to his in following a that restricted SC status only to Mochis from two specific talukas in Gujarat.
A That Tested the Constitutional Conscience
Makwana was appointed as a Lower Division Clerk in under the SC quota. Back then, the in Gujarat was fully specified as a Scheduled Caste by virtue of the . He rose to the rank of Enforcement Officer in . Nine years later, the EPFO issued an order reverting him on the ground that the amendment had already limited SC specification to Mochis from Dangs and Umbergaon taluka only—areas to which Makwana did not belong. Aggrieved, Makwana approached the (CAT) , which set aside the , reasoning that the vacancy for his promotion had arisen in 2000 when all Mochis were SC. The EPFO challenged this before the High Court.
‘Caste is Thrust at Birth; Benefits Endure for Life’
The EPFO argued that the relevant date for reservation eligibility is the date of promotion, not the date of vacancy. Since the amendment had already taken effect when Makwana was promoted in 2003, he could not claim the benefit of reservation, it was contended. The employer relied on several rulings, including , to assert that changes in the SC list operate instantaneously.
The High Court, however, delved deeper into the constitutional scheme and the very nature of caste. Drawing upon the observation of the in that “,” the Bench noted that once a person is born into a caste, the identity is involuntary and permanent.
“The acquisition of caste is by birth, and this caste stands attached to a person till he is alive,” the judgment stated. “If a person is born into a caste which had been specified as a Scheduled Caste at the time of his birth, this would mean that his caste was considered as … and this person would continue to be during his entire life even though his caste, as a whole, could … advance socially.”
The court specifically rejected the contention that a parliamentary amendment could retrospectively undo . It held:
“.”
And further:
“ and the benefits that had accrued on a person who had been born into the caste when it was included in the list of scheduled castes would continue to adhere to him during his life time.”
The Over Statistical Change
The court drew a crucial distinction between a caste group’s collective social advancement—which may prompt Parliament to exclude it from the list—and an individual who was born under the protective umbrella of that list. “This would basically mean that the period during which the caste had been specified as Scheduled caste, the members of the caste were considered as oppressed and weak … This, however, should not mean that the persons who had taken the benefit of reservation will lose the benefit midway on the assumption that the social status of his caste had improved,” it observed.
The bench further reasoned that a contrary view would be “,” as it would abandon an individual after promising him a secured future. It stressed that a right vested under the Constitution cannot be divested by a later parliamentary law.
Implications and the Path Ahead
The decision effectively grants lifetime protection to all individuals who, at any point, were covered by a SC list and availed consequential benefits. It does, however, leave open the possibility that children born after a caste’s exclusion may not inherit the same status. This ensures that the Parliament’s power under to modify the list remains intact, while individuals are not penalised for changes that occur during their lifetimes.
As a result, the High Court dismissed the EPFO’s petition and affirmed the CAT order that had restored Makwana’s promotion. The judgment not only provides relief to Makwana but also offers a robust shield to countless beneficiaries of reservation whose castes might later be re‑classified.
The full judgment can be accessed at: Special Civil Application No. 21004 of 2016, .
