Source: Supreme Court 

Why in News? 

A bench of Justice PS Narsimha and Justice Manoj Misra refused to extend the benefit of Scheduled caste reservation to a person who belonged to ‘Tanti’ caste which was notified in Other Backward Caste category.                    

• The Supreme Court held this in the case of Union of India & Others v. Rohit Nandan (2024). 

What was the Background of Union of India & Others v. Rohit Nandan Case?  

• The Respondent was appointed as a Postal Assistant under the Other Backward Caste (OBC) category on the basis of his ‘Tanti’ Caste Certificate. 
• The State Government by a notification dated 2nd July 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. 
• The Respondent requested the Chief Post Master General, Patna on 29th June 2016 to change his category from OBC to Scheduled Caste (SC) in his service book in terms of the new notification. 
• The Respondent in the meanwhile applied for promotion to Postal Service Group ‘B’ as the SC candidate and appeared in the examination held on 18th December 2016. 
• Though he was declared successful in the examination his his name was not approved for the promotion and his result was put on hold for further consideration. 
• The office of the Postmaster General, Bihar, however changed the category of Respondent to SC in his Service Book. 
• Finally, the Department of Posts, after consulting the Department of Social Justice and Empowerment ordered that the respondent was not entitled to the benefit of SC category as he did not belong to the SC category and deleted his name from the list of candidates successful. 
• Aggrieved by the above order the Respondent filed before the Central Administrative Tribunal which was dismissed on 1st April 2022. 
• The decision of the Tribunal was challenged before the High Court in a Writ Petition and the same was allowed. 
• During pendency of the appeal the very same question was taken by the Court in the case of Dr. Bhim Rao Ambedkar Vichar Manch Bihar, Patna v. The State of Bihar and Others (2024) wherein the Court held that the exercise of taking out ‘Tanti’ from the EBC (Extremely Backward Classes) lists and it’s merger with the SC list is bad, illegal and unsustainable. 
• The Learned Counsel relied on the judgment of K. Nirmala v. Canara Bank (2024) where the Court protected bank employees from certain castes who previously held Scheduled Caste certificates, even after those certificates were withdrawn. 
• The Court ruled that these employees were entitled to service protection through government circulars issued in 2003 and 2005, ensuring they would be considered as unreserved candidates for future purposes. 

What were the Court’s Observations?  

• The court distinguishes this case from previous judgments in Bhim Rao Ambedkar Vichar Manch Bihar, Patna v. The State of Bihar and Others (2024) and K. Nirmala v. Canara Bank (2024), which exercised equity jurisdiction to protect long-standing employees. 
• The respondent was initially serving as an OBC candidate, but a state government notification on 2nd July 2015 shifted his caste (Tanti) from OBC to Scheduled Caste, with the service record changed on 17th August 2018. 
• The respondent applied for a Limited Departmental Competitive Examination on 7th October 2016 as a Scheduled Caste candidate, which was initially rejected by the government. 
• The Tribunal dismissed the respondent's original application on 1st April 2022, but the High Court allowed his writ petition on 19th January 2023. 
• The respondent was appointed to the promotional post on 14th December 2023 during the appeal's pendency, benefiting from the illegal categorization for less than a year. 
• Unlike previous cases where courts protected long-standing employees on equitable grounds, this case lacks similar equities. 
• The court concludes that due to the clear legal position and lack of equitable considerations, it cannot direct the continuation of the respondent's appointment based on the illegal Scheduled Caste certification.

What are the Provisions on Reservations? 

• Part XVI of the Constitution of India, 1950 (COI) deals with reservation of SC and ST in Central and State legislatures. 
• Article 15(4) and 16(4) of the COI enabled the State and Central Governments to reserve seats in government services for the members of the SC and ST. 
• The Constitution was amended by the Constitution (77th Amendment) Act, 1995 and a new clause (4A) was inserted in Article 16 to enable the government to provide reservation in promotion. 
• Later, clause (4A) was modified by the Constitution (85th Amendment) Act, 2001 to provide consequential seniority to SC and ST candidates promoted by giving reservation. 
• Constitutional 81st Amendment Act, 2000 inserted Article 16 (4 B) which enables the state to fill the unfilled vacancies of a year which are reserved for SCs/STs in the succeeding year, thereby nullifying the ceiling of fifty percent reservation on total number of vacancies of that year. 
• Article 330 and 332 of COI provides for specific representation through reservation of seats for SCs and STs in the Parliament and in the State Legislative Assemblies respectively. 
• Article 243D provides reservation of seats for SCs and STs in every Panchayat. 
• Article 233T provides reservation of seats for SCs and STs in every Municipality. 
• Article 335 of the constitution says that the claims of STs and STs shall be taken into consideration constituently with the maintenance of efficacy of the administration.

What are the Provisions of Constitution that Provide for Specification of SC/ST and OBC? 

• Socially and Educationally Backward Classes 
  • Article 342 A of the COI provides for the following: 
    • The President has the authority to specify socially and educationally backward classes for any State or Union territory, consulting with the Governor for states. 
    • These specified classes will be deemed socially and educationally backward for constitutional purposes within that specific State or Union territory. 
    • Parliament is empowered to modify the Central List of socially and educationally backward classes by including or excluding specific classes through legislative action. 
    • Once a notification is issued under this clause, it cannot be altered by subsequent notifications, except through parliamentary legislative intervention. 
• Scheduled Castes 
  • Article 341 of the COI provides for the following:  
    • The President has the power to specify castes, races, tribes, or groups within these categories as Scheduled Castes for any State or Union territory. 
    • For states, the President must consult with the Governor before issuing a public notification identifying these Scheduled Castes. 
    • The specified castes, races, or tribes will be considered Scheduled Castes for constitutional purposes within that particular State or Union territory. 
    • Parliament can modify the list of Scheduled Castes through legislation by including or excluding specific castes, races, tribes, or groups. 
    • Once a notification is issued under this clause, it cannot be altered by any subsequent notification, with the exception of changes made through parliamentary legislation. 
• Scheduled Tribes 
  • Article 342 of the COI provides for the following: 
    • The President holds the authority to specify tribes, tribal communities, or groups within these communities as Scheduled Tribes for any State or Union territory. 
    • For states, the President is required to consult with the Governor before issuing a public notification identifying these Scheduled Tribes. 
    • The tribes or tribal communities specified in the notification will be considered Scheduled Tribes for constitutional purposes within that specific State or Union territory. 
    • Parliament has the legislative power to modify the list of Scheduled Tribes by including or excluding particular tribes, tribal communities, or groups within them. 
    • Once a notification is issued under this clause, it cannot be altered by any subsequent notification, with the sole exception of changes implemented through parliamentary legislation. 

What are the Case Laws that Provide for Alteration of the Caste Lists? 

• Dr. Bhim Rao Ambedkar Vichar Manch Bihar, Patna v. The State of Bihar & Others (2024) 
  • The Bihar Government's 2015 resolution merging "Tanti-Tantwa" with the Scheduled Caste list was struck down as unconstitutional.  
    • The Court ruled that state governments have no authority to modify Scheduled Caste lists published under Article 341 of the Constitution.  
    • Only Parliament has the power to amend, add, delete, or modify the Scheduled Castes list through enacted law. 
  • The Court deemed the state's action as mala fide and in violation of constitutional provisions. 
  • The Court criticized the state for depriving legitimate Scheduled Caste members of their benefits by extending them to an undeserving community. 
• State of Maharashtra v. Milind (2001) 
  • The Supreme Court held that only those castes mentioned in the Presidential Order under Article 341 can be deemed Scheduled Castes. State governments cannot expand this list.