Tanti-Tantwa Applicants Who Missed EBC Cut-Off Lose SC-Quota Challenge As Patna HC Applies Supreme Court Ruling To Ongoing Bihar Recruitment

The appellants applied for Trade Instructor (Fitter) posts under Advertisement No. 10 of 2023, claiming Scheduled Caste status on the basis of the “Tanti-Tantwa” caste.

After participating in the examination and being called for document verification, they were treated as candidates belonging to the Extremely Backward Class (EBC) category and were not selected because they did not meet the EBC cut-off marks.

This followed the Supreme Court’s judgment in Dr. Bhim Rao Ambedkar Vichar Manch Bihar, Patna v. State of Bihar, and the State’s subsequent notification and directions to the Commission.

The appellants’ writ petition, challenging the application of that ruling to the ongoing recruitment, was dismissed by the Single Judge; they appealed.

The Supreme Court’s decision in Dr. Bhim Rao Ambedkar Vichar Manch Bihar, Patna v. State of Bihar directed that Scheduled Caste quota posts extended to members of the “Tanti-Tantwa” community after the State’s Resolution dated 1 July 2015 be returned to the Scheduled Caste quota, and that affected members be accommodated in their original EBC category.

The Court applied the principle that a judicial decision ordinarily operates retrospectively unless the deciding court expressly limits it to prospective operation; it relied on the Division Bench decision in Ashutosh Kumar v. State of Bihar, L.P.A. No. 399 of 2022, which applied that principle to a caste-status dispute.

The judgment also referred to the retrospective-effect principle stated in Assistant Commissioner, Income Tax, Rajkot v. Saurashtra Kutch Stock Exchange Ltd. and quoted in Directorate of Revenue Intelligence v. Raj Kumar Arora.

The Court held that the Supreme Court’s ruling required “Tanti-Tantwa” candidates to be treated as belonging to the EBC category, and that the State’s notification and the Commission’s directions implemented that ruling.

Because the recruitment had not been finalised, the appellants could not rely on the category they had claimed when applying to resist application of the ruling.

The Court agreed with the Single Judge that, absent an express direction making the Supreme Court’s ruling prospective, it applied to the ongoing selection; the earlier caste certificates did not alter that conclusion.

As the appellants did not meet the EBC cut-off marks, their exclusion from selection was upheld.

Finding no merit in the appeal, it dismissed the Letters Patent Appeal and disposed of any pending interlocutory applications.