01Facts
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
¶ 1At that time, the 1976 Amendment Act specified Mochis throughout Gujarat as SC
¶ 2In 2002, a new Parliamentary Amendment introduced area restrictions, limiting SC status for Mochis only to those from Dang district and Umbergaon taluka
¶ 3-4Despite this, the respondent was promoted to Enforcement Officer in 2003 based on his SC status
¶ 5Nine 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
¶ 6The 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
¶ 802Issues
i.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?
¶ 17 / 66ii.2. Whether the exclusion of a caste from the Presidential Order by Parliament divests an individual of benefits already lawfully claimed or vested?
¶ 17 / 68iii.3. Whether the CAT was justified in using the date of vacancy as the relevant date for determining reservation status?
¶ 17 / 9203Law Applied
Article 341 of the Constitution, which empowers the President to specify SCs and the Parliament to include or exclude castes therefrom
¶ 41-42The principle that caste is an involuntary status acquired by birth and remains for life
¶ 21-25Indra Sawhney v. Union of India regarding the definition of caste as a hereditary social class
¶ 24Article 16(4A) regarding reservations in promotion
¶ 30The 7-judge bench decision in State of Punjab v. Davinder Singh, affirming Parliament’s sole power to amend the SC list
¶ 47The 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
¶ 89-91Provisions in the judgment · 3 · Linked ones open on LawLens
States Reorganisation Act, 1956 Section 41
Bihar and West Bengal (Transfer of Territories) Act, 1956 Section 14
Bombay Reorganisation Act, 1960 Section 26
04Reasoning
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"
¶ 21, 83The 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
¶ 78The Court emphasized "constitutional morality," stating that the law cannot abandon an individual midway through their career after a status was constitutionally conferred
¶ 84It 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
¶ 85The 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
¶ 9205Holding
It held that a person born into an SC caste, or who lawfully took the benefit of reservation while the caste was specified as SC, is entitled to those benefits throughout their lifetime
¶ 85, 88The High Court dismissed the petition and affirmed the protection of the respondent's promotion
¶ 94The 2012 reversion order was held unsustainable as the respondent carried his SC status for the duration of his career
¶ 88The EPFO's challenge to the CAT order was rejected
¶ 94Original Court PDF
EMPLOYEES' PROVIDENT FUND ORGANIZATIONvsRANJIT VASANTLAL MAKWANA
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in
