Supreme Court Upholds OBC Status, Rejects Scheduled Caste Claim Based on Illegal Notification: Union of India vs. Rohit Nandan (2024)

Date of the Judgment: 13 December 2024

Citation: 2024 INSC 984

Judges: Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha, J., Manoj Misra, J.

Can a State government reclassify a caste from Other Backward Class (OBC) to Scheduled Caste (SC) through a notification, and can an individual benefit from such a reclassification for employment purposes? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question in a case concerning a postal employee who sought to change his category from OBC to SC based on a State Government notification. The Court held that the State government’s action was illegal and upheld the employee’s original OBC status. The judgment was delivered by a two-judge bench comprising Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Justice Manoj Misra, with Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha authoring the opinion.

Case Background

The respondent, Rohit Nandan, was initially appointed as a Postal Assistant in 1997 under the Other Backward Class (OBC) category, based on his ‘Tanti’ caste certificate. On 02 July 2015, the State Government of Bihar issued a notification that removed the ‘Tanti’ caste from the list of OBCs, intending to allow members of this community to avail benefits as Scheduled Caste (SC) by merging it with the Pan/Swasi caste, which is listed as a Scheduled Caste. Following this notification, on 29 September 2015, the respondent obtained a Scheduled Caste certificate and requested a change of his category in his service book from OBC to SC. He also applied for promotion to Postal Service Group ‘B’ as a Scheduled Caste candidate and was declared successful on 16 April 2018. However, his promotion was put on hold and the Department of Posts, after consulting the Department of Social Justice and Empowerment, ultimately denied him the benefit of the Scheduled Caste category on 14 February 2019.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The respondent challenged the order of the Department of Posts before the Central Administrative Tribunal, which dismissed his application on 01 April 2022. The respondent then filed a writ petition before the High Court of Judicature at Patna. The High Court allowed the writ petition on 19 January 2023, setting aside the Tribunal’s order and the Department of Posts’ decision. The High Court reasoned that the State Government’s notification was a clarification to enable the ‘Tanti’ caste to avail benefits as Scheduled Caste, and since the respondent had a valid SC certificate, he should be considered as belonging to the SC category. The Union of India then appealed this decision to the Supreme Court.

Legal Framework

The Supreme Court referred to Article 341 of the Constitution of India, which deals with the power to specify Scheduled Castes. It states that the President, after consultation with the Governor of a State, may specify the castes, races, or tribes which shall be deemed to be Scheduled Castes in relation to that State. Further, it states that Parliament may by law include or exclude from the list of Scheduled Castes specified in a notification issued under clause (1) any caste, race or tribe. The Court also referred to the Bihar Reservation of Vacancies in Posts and Services (For Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes) Act, 1991, which deals with reservation for backward classes in Bihar.

Arguments

The arguments presented before the Supreme Court can be summarized as follows:

• Appellant (Union of India):
  • The State Government’s notification of 02 July 2015, which removed the ‘Tanti’ caste from the OBC list and merged it with the Scheduled Caste list, was illegal and beyond its competence.
  • The State Government cannot alter the Presidential list of Scheduled Castes under Article 341 of the Constitution.
  • The respondent was initially appointed as an OBC candidate and cannot claim benefits as a Scheduled Caste candidate based on an illegal notification.
  • The respondent’s appointment to the promotional post during the pendency of the appeal does not create any equities in his favor.
• Respondent (Rohit Nandan):
  • The State Government’s notification was a clarification to enable members of the ‘Tanti’ caste to avail benefits as Scheduled Castes.
  • He possesses a valid Scheduled Caste certificate issued by a competent authority.
  • He relied on the High Court’s decision that upheld his claim as a Scheduled Caste candidate.
  • He argued for protection of his service, citing previous Supreme Court decisions where similar protections were granted.

The core of the appellant’s argument was that the State Government had no authority to alter the list of Scheduled Castes, which can only be done by an act of Parliament. The respondent’s argument was based on the High Court’s view that the State notification was a mere clarification and that he possessed a valid SC certificate. The respondent also relied on the principles of equity, arguing that he should be protected from the consequences of the illegal notification, similar to previous cases where the Supreme Court had protected employees.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The primary issue before the Supreme Court was:

1. Whether the State Government’s notification dated 02.07.2015, which removed the ‘Tanti’ caste from the OBC list and merged it with the Scheduled Caste list, was valid and legal.
2. Whether the respondent was entitled to claim the benefits of the Scheduled Caste category based on the said notification.
3. Whether the respondent is entitled to protection of his service.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

Judgment

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal filed by the Union of India and set aside the judgment of the High Court. The Court restored the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal, which had dismissed the respondent’s original application. The Court held that the State Government’s notification was illegal and that the respondent could not claim the benefits of the Scheduled Caste category based on that notification. The court also held that the respondent’s case did not warrant protection of service, unlike in previous cases where the court had protected employees due to long-standing service.

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• Dr. Bhim Rao Ambedkar Vichar Manch Bihar v. State of Bihar [2024 INSC 528]* – This case was followed by the Court. The Court reiterated that the State Government had no power to alter the list of Scheduled Castes and that the merger of the ‘Tanti’ caste with the Scheduled Caste list was illegal.
• K. Nirmala v. Canara Bank [2024 INSC 634]* – This case was distinguished by the Court. The Court clarified that the protection of service was granted in that case due to long-standing appointments, which was not the case here.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the illegality of the State Government’s notification and the constitutional limitations on altering the list of Scheduled Castes. The Court emphasized that the power to specify Scheduled Castes lies with the President and Parliament, not with the State Government. The Court also distinguished the present case from previous cases where protection of service was granted, noting the lack of long-standing service and equitable considerations in the respondent’s case. The Court’s reasoning focused on upholding the constitutional framework and preventing the State from unilaterally altering the reservation categories.

Logical Reasoning:

The Court did not consider any alternative interpretations of the law other than the interpretation that the State Government had no power to alter the list of Scheduled Castes. The Court rejected the High Court’s view that the State notification was a mere clarification. The Court’s decision was based on a strict interpretation of Article 341 of the Constitution and the previous judgments of the Supreme Court.

The decision was reached by a two-judge bench, with Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha authoring the opinion. There were no dissenting opinions.

“The State Government had no competence/ authority/power to tinker with the lists of Scheduled Castes published under Article 341 of the Constitution.”

“The respondent cannot claim the benefits of the Scheduled Caste Category since the merger of the Tanti caste with the Scheduled Caste list is bad in law.”

“Therefore, there are no equities in favour of the respondent like that of the candidates in the case of Bhim Rao Ambedkar or K. Nirmala (supra).”

Key Takeaways

• State Governments cannot unilaterally alter the list of Scheduled Castes.
• Any change in the list of Scheduled Castes can only be done by an act of Parliament.
• Individuals cannot claim benefits of Scheduled Caste status based on illegal State Government notifications.
• Protection of service is not automatically granted in cases of illegal caste reclassifications; long-standing service and equitable considerations are necessary.

This judgment reinforces the constitutional framework regarding reservation and emphasizes the importance of adhering to the prescribed procedures for altering reservation categories. It also clarifies that the Supreme Court will not automatically protect individuals who have benefited from illegal reclassifications, especially if they do not have long-standing service.

Directions

The Supreme Court set aside the judgment of the High Court and restored the judgment and order of the Central Administrative Tribunal, dismissing the Original Application filed by the respondent. No specific directions were given beyond this.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that State Governments do not have the power to alter the list of Scheduled Castes, and any such change must be done by an act of Parliament. This case reinforces the principles laid down in previous judgments such as Dr. Bhim Rao Ambedkar Vichar Manch Bihar v. State of Bihar and clarifies that the Supreme Court will not automatically protect individuals who have benefited from illegal reclassifications, particularly in the absence of long-standing service. This case clarifies that the court will not extend the principle of equity to cases where the benefit was availed for a short period of time.

Conclusion

In the case of Union of India vs. Rohit Nandan, the Supreme Court upheld the constitutional framework regarding reservation and reiterated that State Governments cannot unilaterally alter the list of Scheduled Castes. The Court held that the State Government’s notification merging the ‘Tanti’ caste with the Scheduled Caste list was illegal, and therefore, the respondent was not entitled to claim the benefits of the Scheduled Caste category. The Court also clarified that protection of service is not automatically granted in cases of illegal caste reclassifications, and that long-standing service and equitable considerations are necessary. This judgment serves as a reminder of the importance of adhering to the constitutional provisions and procedures for altering reservation categories.

Category

✓ Service Law

  ✓ Reservation

    ✓ Scheduled Castes

    ✓ Other Backward Classes

✓ Constitution of India

  ✓ Article 341, Constitution of India

FAQ

Q: Can a State Government change the list of Scheduled Castes?
A: No, a State Government cannot unilaterally change the list of Scheduled Castes. This power lies with the President and Parliament of India.

Q: What happens if a State Government illegally reclassifies a caste?
A: Any reclassification done by a State Government without the authority is illegal and will not be upheld by the courts. Individuals cannot claim benefits based on such illegal notifications.

Q: Can someone who benefited from an illegal reclassification be protected?
A: While the Supreme Court has protected individuals in some cases, this is not automatic. Protection is usually granted in cases where there has been long-standing service and equitable considerations. In cases where the benefit was availed for a short period, such protection may not be granted.

Q: What should an individual do if they have a caste certificate based on an illegal notification?
A: Individuals should seek clarification from the relevant authorities and ensure their caste certificates are in line with the constitutional provisions. They may also need to revert to their original caste category if the reclassification is deemed illegal.