Motor Insurance Policy Covers Cross-Border Travel If Specifically Authorized By Valid Permit Under MVA: Supreme Court Petrol Pumps Act As 'Commission Agents' For Mahanagar Gas, Liable To Pay Service Tax Under Business Auxiliary Service: Supreme Court Supreme Court Refuses To Dilute 'Bangalore Water Supply' Ratio, Affirms Worker Protection Remains The Core Of Industrial Disputes Act Order XXII Rule 9(3) CPC | Application Under Section 5 Limitation Act Must Be Filed Separately To Condonate Delay In Setting Aside Abatement: Supreme Court Principle Of Parity | Supreme Court Extends Benefit Of Fixed-Term Sentence To Co-Accused Based On Remission Period Right To Catch Fish Amounts To 'Profit à Prendre' And Is Compulsorily Registrable As A Lease Under Section 17(1)(d) Registration Act: Supreme Court Supreme Court Mandates Adoption Of Guidelines To Inculcate Sensitivity And Compassion In Judicial Processes For Sexual Offences 'Last Seen' Circumstance Is Weak Without Corroboration: Supreme Court Acquits Murder Accused PSEB | Pre-Regularization Service Must Be Counted As Qualifying Service For Pensionary Benefits: Supreme Court Writ Of Quo Warranto Cannot Be Used For Redress Of Personal Grievances By Unsuccessful Candidates In Selection Process: Supreme Court 'Case Of No Investigation': Supreme Court Acquits Murder Accused Citing 'Shoddy' Police Work And Lack Of Forensic Evidence 'Status Quo Cannot Be Vacated Without Appropriate Security': Supreme Court Directs Additional ₹200 Crores Deposit In RAKIA-Matrix Case SARFAESI Act | 'Bank' As Assignee Can Invoke Recovery Measures Even If Debt Was Originally Created By Non-Notified Financial Institution: Supreme Court 'CBI Failed Miserably': Supreme Court Tears Into 'Fabricated' Case, Acquits Bank Manager In 35-Year-Old Corruption Trial Mere Delay In Tax Deposit Cannot Be Equated With Non-Payment: Supreme Court Quashes Penalty On Saudi Arabian Airlines Revisional Power Under Section 56 Karnataka Land Revenue Act Cannot Be Invoked Beyond Three-Year Limitation Period: Supreme Court Prosecution Can’t Use Known Locations To Create 'Discovery' Fiction: Supreme Court Rejects Site Plan As Evidence Irretrievable Breakdown Of Marriage And Long-Term Separation Constitute Valid Grounds For Divorce Under Section 13(1)(ib) HMA: Supreme Court 'Proof Beyond Reasonable Doubt Is A Guideline And Not A Fetish': Supreme Court Acquits Man In 2007 Murder Case Over Fragile Circumstantial Evidence Plea Of Juvenility Is A Jurisdictional Fact; High Court Must Recall Final Judgments Under Section 482 CrPC To Remedy Miscarriage Of Justice: Supreme Court SEBI | Professional Clearing Members Have No Statutory Obligation To Verify Credit/Debit Positions Of Individual Clients Of Trading Members: Supreme Court

Supreme Court Saves Jobs of Employees with Invalid Caste Certificates, Cites ‘Equitable Protection’ Despite State Overreach

02 September 2024 10:46 AM

By: sayum


In a significant judgment, the Supreme Court has protected the employment of individuals who secured jobs based on caste certificates from communities that were later de-scheduled by the State of Karnataka. The ruling quashed the termination notices issued to these employees, emphasizing that their services must be preserved, albeit under the general category. The decision reinforces the principle that state governments cannot alter the list of Scheduled Castes and Tribes, a power vested solely in the Parliament under the Constitution.

The case involved employees from various government undertakings who had been employed based on caste certificates identifying them as members of the Scheduled Castes (SC) in Karnataka. These certificates were issued following state notifications that had included certain synonymous castes in the SC list. However, following the Supreme Court’s decision in State of Maharashtra v. Milind, which clarified that only Parliament has the authority to modify the SC/ST list, these castes were de-scheduled by the state, leading to the cancellation of the appellants’ caste certificates and subsequent initiation of termination proceedings by their employers.

The Supreme Court observed that while the caste certificates were issued under state authority, their validity was nullified after the de-scheduling of the castes. The court highlighted that the original inclusion of these castes in the SC list by the state was beyond its jurisdiction, as such powers are exclusively vested in Parliament under Articles 341 and 342 of the Constitution.

Despite the invalidation of the caste certificates, the Court emphasized the protection offered by state circulars issued in 2002 and 2003, which allowed affected employees to retain their jobs under the general category. The Court noted that these circulars were further supported by communications from the Ministry of Finance, which had ratified the state’s decision to protect such employees from termination.

The Court heavily relied on its previous judgment in Milind, which established that no state government or court has the authority to amend or alter the SC/ST list. The judgment clarified that any such alterations must be made through legislation by Parliament. However, recognizing that the caste certificates were not obtained through fraud or misrepresentation, the Court found it equitable to allow the employees to continue in service under the general category, thereby protecting their employment.

 

Justice Hima Kohli, delivering the judgment, remarked, “The circulars dated 11th March 2002 and 29th March 2003 issued by the Government of Karnataka, along with the ratification by the Ministry of Finance, provide a protective umbrella that ensures the continuation of service for the appellants, albeit under the general category. The action proposed by the respondent banks and undertakings to terminate these services cannot be sustained.”

The Supreme Court’s ruling sends a clear message regarding the limits of state authority in matters of caste classification and the protections afforded to employees in such scenarios. By allowing the affected employees to continue in their roles under the general category, the judgment balances the principles of equity with constitutional mandates. This decision is likely to have significant implications for similar cases, reinforcing the need for legislative clarity in matters of caste-based reservations.

Date of Decision: August 28, 2024

K. Nirmala & Ors. Vs. Canara Bank & Anr.

Latest Legal News