Union Of India vs Rohit Nandan

Court: Supreme Court
Case type: Civil Appeal
Decided on: 13-12-2024

<pre> REPORTABLE
2024 INSC 984

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). 14394 OF 2024
(@ SLP (C) No. 18985 OF 2023)

UNION OF INDIA & ORS. ...APPELLANT(S)

VERSUS

ROHIT NANDAN ...RESPONDENT(S)

 J U D G M E N T 
PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA, J .

1. Leave granted.
2. The Union of India is in appeal against the judgment of the
1
Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Patna 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 
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
KAPIL TANDON
Date: 2024.12.13
18:45:43 IST
Reason:

1
In CWJC No. 12096 of 2022 dated 19.01.2023.
1

2
of Bihar , 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.
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

2
2024 INSC 528 .
2

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
3

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 . 
 
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
4

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-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 
5

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 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 
6

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. 
 […] 
 
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. 
3
Nirmala v . Canara Bank 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

3
2024 INSC 634.
7

4
Court in a case of State of Maharashtra v. Milind & Ors . 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 
th
virtue of the Government circular dated 29 March, 2003 
issued by the Government of Karnataka as ratified by 
th
communication dated 17 August, 2005 issued by the 
th
Ministry of Finance. The circular dated 29 March, 2003 
issued by the Government of Karnataka specifically 
extended protection to various castes, including those which 
th
were excluded in the earlier Government circular dated 11 
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 
th
communication issued by the Ministry of Finance dated 17 
August, 2005 reinforced the protective umbrella to the 
concerned bank employees and also saved them from 
departmental and criminal action.” 

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

4
(2001) 1 SCC 4
8

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
9

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.
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.

 ..………………………………………………J. 
 [PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA] 
 
 
 
 …………………………………………………J. 
 [MANOJ MISRA] 
 
 NEW DELHI; 
 DECEMBER 13, 2024 
10 </pre>