### Constitutional Status as a Scheduled Caste Vests at Birth and Endures Throughout an Individual’s Lifetime

The respondent, belonging to the Mochi caste, was appointed as a Lower Division Clerk in the EPFO on 07.04.1995 under the Scheduled Caste (SC) category

At that time, the 1976 Amendment Act specified Mochis throughout Gujarat as SC

In 2002, a new Parliamentary Amendment introduced area restrictions, limiting SC status for Mochis only to those from Dang district and Umbergaon taluka

Despite this, the respondent was promoted to Enforcement Officer in 2003 based on his SC status

Nine years later, on 29.11.2012, the EPFO reverted him to his substantive post, arguing he no longer qualified as SC under the 2002 Amendment

The Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) set aside the reversion, holding that the promotion was valid because the vacancy arose in 2000, prior to the 2002 Amendment

1. What are the rights that accrue to a person born into a caste specified as Scheduled Caste under Article 341 at the time of birth, and do these rights vest for a lifetime?

2. Whether the exclusion of a caste from the Presidential Order by Parliament divests an individual of benefits already lawfully claimed or vested?

3. Whether the CAT was justified in using the date of vacancy as the relevant date for determining reservation status?

Article 341 of the Constitution, which empowers the President to specify SCs and the Parliament to include or exclude castes therefrom

The principle that caste is an involuntary status acquired by birth and remains for life

Indra Sawhney v. Union of India regarding the definition of caste as a hereditary social class

Article 16(4A) regarding reservations in promotion

The 7-judge bench decision in State of Punjab v. Davinder Singh, affirming Parliament’s sole power to amend the SC list

The court distinguished Shree Surat Valsad Jilla KMG Parishad v. Union of India, noting that a "Letter of Intent" for a dealership is not a vested right comparable to a constitutional right in public employment

The Court reasoned that because entry into a caste is involuntary and permanent, a person born into a caste specified as SC at that time acquires a "vested constitutional right"

The 2002 Amendment, while validly excluding certain Mochis prospectively, cannot divest an individual of the status they held when the right to reservation was first exercised

The Court emphasized "constitutional morality," stating that the law cannot abandon an individual midway through their career after a status was constitutionally conferred

It held that while a caste as a whole may be removed from the list because of social advancement, individuals who were already part of the protected class and availed benefits possess a lifetime entitlement to that specific identity for the purposes of their employment

The Court found the CAT's focus on the "date of vacancy" irrelevant because the respondent's SC status was protected for his entire lifetime regardless of the 2002 Amendment

The High Court dismissed the petition and affirmed the protection of the respondent's promotion

The 2012 reversion order was held unsustainable as the respondent carried his SC status for the duration of his career

The EPFO's challenge to the CAT order was rejected