UNION OF INDIA & ORS.versusROHIT NANDAN

                [2024] 12 S.C.R. 617 : 2024 INSC 984

                          Union of India & Ors.
                                    v.
                             Rohit Nandan
                     Civil Appeal No(s). 14394 of 2024
                             13 December 2024
    [Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha* and Manoj Misra, JJ.]


                           Issue for Consideration
       Issue arose as regards entitlement of respondent-employee’s claim
       to the benefit of Scheduled Caste category, when the respondent
       appointed on the basis of his ‘Tanti’ Caste Certificate, the ‘Tanti’
       caste was deleted from the list of OBCs and merged with Pan/
       Swasi caste in the list of Scheduled Castes.

                                  Headnotes†
       Constitution of India – Art.341 – Scheduled Castes list –
       Merging of caste “Tanti” with the caste ‘Pan/Sawasi’ in the
       list of Scheduled Castes – Entitlement of employee’s claim
       to the benefit of Scheduled Caste category – Appointment
       of the respondent-employee under the Other Backward
       Classes category on the basis of ‘Tanti’ caste certificate –
       State Government vide notification deleted ‘Tanti’ caste from
       the list of OBCs and merged it with ‘Pan/Swasi’ caste in the
       list of Scheduled Castes – Respondent obtained Scheduled
       Caste Certificate as a member of ‘Pan/Swasi’ caste and
       necessary changes made in the Service Record – Meanwhile,
       the respondent applied for promotion as a Scheduled Caste
       candidate, however, his name not approved since he was held
       not entitled to claim benefit of Scheduled Caste category –
       Tribunal dismissed the respondent’s application, however, the
       High Court allowed the writ petition – Correctness:
       Held: During pendency of this appeal, the same issue was decided
       by this Court in Dr. Bhim Rao Ambedkar’s case holding that the
       exercise of taking out ‘Tanti’ from Extremely Backward Classes list
       issued and its merger with the Scheduled Caste list is bad, illegal
       and unsustainable – In view thereof, the respondent cannot claim
       the benefits of the Scheduled Caste category – After the decision
       of this Court in the case of Dr. Bhim Rao Ambedkar, the issue as
* Author
618                                                            [2024] 12 S.C.R.

                        Digital Supreme Court Reports


       regards the claim of reservation as Scheduled Caste candidate
       does not subsist – Furthermore, the earlier decisions stand on
       different footing wherein long standing appointments continued
       over a period of time, because of which court felt, on equitable
       considerations, not to disturb their employment – On facts, the
       respondent was appointed to said promotional post in December
       2023 – Benefit of his illegal categorisation as a Scheduled Caste
       candidate, accrued to him was for a short period of less than a
       year and that too during the pendency of the said appeal – No
       equities in favour of the respondent like that of the candidates in
       earlier cases – Order cannot be passed directing continuation of
       the respondent on the basis of the illegal certification as Scheduled
       Caste – Judgment of the High Court set aside and that of the
       tribunal restored. [Paras 8, 9, 12, 13, 15, 16]

                                Case Law Cited
       Dr. Bhim Rao Ambedkar Vichar Manch Bihar v. State of Bihar
       [2024] 7 SCR 796 : 2024 INSC 528; K. Nirmala v. Canara Bank
       [2024] 8 SCR 868 : 2024 INSC 634 – Distinguished.
       State of Maharashtra v. Milind & Ors [2000] Supp. 5 SCR 65 :
       (2001) 1 SCC 4 – referred to.

                                   List of Acts
       Bihar Reservation of Vacancies in Posts and Services (For
       Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes)
       Act, 1991.

                                List of Keywords
       Art.341 Constitution of India; List of Scheduled Castes; Tanti caste;
       Pan/Swasi caste; Equity jurisdiction; Benefit of Scheduled Caste
       category; ‘Tanti’ Caste Certificate; Merging of caste “Tanti” with the
       caste ‘Pan/Sawasi’ in list of Scheduled Castes; Extremely Backward
       Classes; Bhim Rao Ambedkar’s case; Equitable considerations;
       Illegal categorisation as Scheduled Caste candidate; Illegal
       certification as Scheduled Caste.

                               Case Arising From
       CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 14394 of 2024
       From the Judgment and Order dated 19-01-2023 of the High Court
       of Judicature at Patna in CWJC No. 12096 of 2022
[2024] 12 S.C.R.                                                      619

                       Union of India & Ors. v. Rohit Nandan


                                Appearances for Parties
      K.M. Nataraj, A.S.G., Ms. R. Bala, Sr. Adv., Amrish Kumar,
      Ms. Shradha Deshmukh, Ms. Aakanksha Kaul, Sarthak Karol,
      Rohit Khare, Piyush Beriwal, Advs. for the Appellants.
      Anilendra Pandey, Rajeev Kumar Ranjan, Ms. Priya Kashyap,
      Nadeem Hussain, M/s. Ranjan and Company, Advs. for the
      Respondent.

                     Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court

                                          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 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,2 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.



1    In CWJC No. 12096 of 2022 dated 19.01.2023.
2    [2024] 7 SCR 796 : 2024 INSC 528.
620                                                          [2024] 12 S.C.R.

                       Digital Supreme Court Reports



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 .
[2024] 12 S.C.R.                                                        621

                     Union of India & Ors. v. Rohit Nandan



          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 allowed and is accordingly allowed.
          The order of learned CAT dated 01.04.2022 and the order
          dated 14.02.2019 issued by the respondent no.3 are
          quashed and set aside.”
8.   During the pendency of the appeal before us and after notice was
     issued by this Court on 25.08.2023, an important development
     occurred. The very same question was taken up and decided
     by this Court on 15.07.2024 in Dr. Bhim Rao Ambedkar (supra).
     Therein, it has been held that the exercise of taking out ‘Tanti’ from
     the EBC (‘Extremely Backward Classes’) list issued under the Bihar
     Reservation of Vacancies in Posts and Services (For Scheduled
     Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes) Act, 1991
     and its merger with the Scheduled Caste list is bad, illegal and
     unsustainable. The relevant portions of the decision are as follows:
          “36. Having considered the submissions advanced, we
          have no hesitation in holding that the Resolution dated
          01.07.2015 was patently illegal, erroneous as the State
          Government had no competence/ authority/power to
          tinker with the lists of Scheduled Castes published under
          Article 341 of the Constitution. The submission of the
          respondent-State that Resolution dated 01.07.2015 was
          only clarificatory is not worth considering for a moment
          and deserves outright rejection. Whether or not it was
          synonymous or integral part of the Entry-20 of the lists of
          Schedule Castes, it could not have been added without
          any law being made by the Parliament. The State knew
          very well that it had no authority and had accordingly
          forwarded its request to the Union of India in the year
          2011. The said request was not accepted and returned
          for further comments/justification/review. Ignoring the
          same, the State proceeded to issue the Circular dated
          01.07.2015. The State may be justified in deleting “Tanti-
622                                                        [2024] 12 S.C.R.

                      Digital Supreme Court Reports


            Tantwa” from the Extremely Backward Classes list on the
            recommendation of the State Backward Commission, but
            beyond that to merge “Tanti-Tantwa” with ‘Pan, Sawasi,
            Panr’ under Entry 20 of the list of Scheduled Castes was
            nothing short of mala fide exercise for whatever good,
            bad or indifferent reasons, the State may have thought at
            that moment. Whether synonymous or not, any inclusion
            or exclusion of any caste, race or tribe or part of or group
            within the castes, races or tribes has to be, by law made
            by the Parliament, and not by any other mode or manner.
            37. The submission that the recommendation of the
            Commission for Extremely Backward Classes was
            binding on the State, is not a question to be determined
            here, inasmuch as, even if we accept the submission,
            such recommendation could relate only to the Extremely
            Backward Classes. Whether or not to include or exclude
            any caste in the list of Extremely Backward Class would
            be within the domain of the Commission. The Commission
            would have no jurisdiction to make recommendation with
            respect to any caste being included in the Scheduled
            Castes lists and, even if it makes such a recommendation,
            right or wrong, the State has no authority to proceed to
            implement the same when it was fully aware that the
            Constitution does not permit it to do so. The Provisions of
            Article 341 sub-clause 1 and sub-Clause 2 are very clear
            and discrete. There is no ambiguity or vagueness otherwise
            requiring any interpretation other than what is mentioned
            therein. The State of Bihar has tried to read something
            in order to suit its own ends for whatever reason, we are
            not commenting on the same.
            38. The High Court fell in serious error in upholding the
            said Notification on a completely wrong premise without
            referring to Article 341 of the Constitution.”
9.     While the present case deals with the removal of the Tanti caste
       from the OBC list instead of the EBC List, the decision of this Court
       in Bhim Rao Ambedkar (supra) covers the issue and the notification
       of the State Government adding to the list of Scheduled Class is
       illegal and unlawful. The respondent cannot claim the benefits of
       the Scheduled Caste Category since the merger of the Tanti caste
[2024] 12 S.C.R.                                                     623

                     Union of India & Ors. v. Rohit Nandan


     with the Scheduled Caste list is bad in law in light of Bhim Rao
     Ambedkar (supra). The learned counsel for the respondent has not
     even argued this point.
10. However, the learned counsel submitted that despite illegality in the
    notification, this Court in Bhim Rao Ambedkar (supra) had protected
    those who had come to occupy the posts. The relevant portion is
    also reproduced for convenience:
          “39. Now comes the question with regard to protecting
          those Members of “Tanti-Tantwa” community who were
          extended benefit of Scheduled Castes pursuant to the
          Resolution dated 01.07.2015. In the present case, the
          action of the State is found to be mala fide and de
          hors the constitutional provisions. The State cannot
          be pardoned for the mischief done by it. Depriving the
          members of the Scheduled Castes covered by the lists
          under Article 341 of the Constitution is a serious issue.
          Any person not deserving and not covered by such list
          if extended such benefit for deliberate and mischievous
          reasons by the State, cannot take away the benefit of the
          members of the Scheduled Castes. Such appointments
          would under law on the findings recorded would be liable
          to be set aside. However, as we have found fault with the
          conduct of the State and not of any individual member of
          the “Tanti- Tantwa” community, we do not wish to direct
          that their services may be terminated or that recovery
          may be made for illegal appointments or withdrawal of
          other benefits which may have been extended. We are
          of the view that all such posts of the Scheduled Castes
          reserved quota which have been extended to the members
          of the “Tanti-Tantwa” community appointed subsequent
          to the Resolution dated 01.07.2015 be returned to the
          Scheduled Castes Quota and all such members of the
          “Tanti-Tantwa” community, who have been extended such
          benefit may be accommodated under their original category
          of Extremely Backward Classes, for which the State may
          take appropriate measures.
          […]
624                                                         [2024] 12 S.C.R.

                           Digital Supreme Court Reports


             42. It is further directed that such posts of the Scheduled
             Castes Quota which had been filled up by members of
             “Tanti-Tantwa” community availing benefit on the basis
             of Resolution dated 01.07.2015 may be returned to the
             Scheduled Castes category and such candidates of “Tanti-
             Tantwa” community be accommodated by the State in
             their original category of Extremely Backward Classes by
             taking appropriate measures.”
11. Learned counsel has also relied on the decision of this Court in
    K. Nirmala v. Canara Bank3 wherein the appellants were granted
    protection despite the State Government notification treating them
    as members belonging to Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe
    was withdrawn by the State Government after the decision of the
    Supreme Court in a case of State of Maharashtra v. Milind & Ors.4
    The relevant portion of the said order is as under:
             “35. In wake of the discussion made above, 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 employees and also saved them from
             departmental and criminal action.”


3   2024 INSC 634 : [2024] 8 SCR 868
4   [2000] Supp. 5 SCR 65 : (2001) 1 SCC 4
[2024] 12 S.C.R.                                                       625

                     Union of India & Ors. v. Rohit Nandan


12. Having considered the matter in detail, we are of the opinion that
    after the decision of this Court in the case of Bhim Rao Ambedkar
    (supra), the issue of the appellant claiming reservation as Scheduled
    Caste candidate does not subsist. As indicated earlier, it is not even
    the argument of the respondent that the said judgment will not apply.
13. The decisions of this Court in Bhim Rao Ambedkar (supra) and in
    K. Nirmala (supra) exercising equity jurisdiction stand on a different
    footing and they can be distinguished on facts. Those judgments
    dealt with long standing appointments, continued over a period of
    time, because of which court felt, on equitable considerations, not
    to disturb the employment of the appellants therein. The facts in
    this case are completely different and the following will clarify the
    position.
14. The respondent was in service of the Union on the basis of reservation
    claimed by him as an OBC candidate. It was only on 02.07.2015
    that the State Government issued a notification shifting the caste
    Tanti from the OBC to that of Scheduled Caste and the necessary
    change in the service record was brought only on 17.08.2018. In
    the meanwhile, an advertisement was issued on 07.10.2016 for a
    Limited Departmental Competitive Examination, and the respondent
    applied as a Scheduled Caste candidate.
15. When the Government refused appointment to the respondent to
    the post as he does not belong to Scheduled Caste, he approached
    the Tribunal and filed an Original Application which came to be
    dismissed on 01.04.2022. However, the respondent’s writ petition
    was allowed by the High Court only on 19.01.2023. We are
    informed that during the pendency of the matter before this Court,
    the respondent was appointed to the said promotional post only on
    14.12.2023. Even assuming that the respondent was given benefit
    of his illegal categorisation as a Scheduled Caste candidate, the
    benefit that accrued to him was for a short period of less than a
    year and that too during the pendency of this appeal. 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).
    In view of the clear position of law, coupled with lack of equities
    based on the facts and circumstances of the case, we cannot direct
    continuation of the respondent on the basis of the illegal certification
    as Scheduled Caste.
626                                                       [2024] 12 S.C.R.

                           Digital Supreme Court Reports


16. In view of the above, we allow the appeal, set aside the judgment
    of the High Court in CWJC No. 12096 of 2022 dated 19.01.2023
    and restore the judgment and order of the Central Administrative
    Tribunal dated 01.04.2022 dismissing the Original Application filed
    by the respondent. There shall be no order as to costs.

       Result of the case: Appeal allowed.



       †
           Headnotes prepared by: Nidhi Jain