Renewal Is Not Extension Unless Terms Are Fixed in Same Deed: Bombay High Court Strikes Down ₹64.75 Lakh Stamp Duty Demand on Nine-Year Lease Fraud Vitiates All Solemn Acts—Appointment Void Ab Initio Even After 27 Years: Allahabad High Court Litigants Cannot Be Penalised For Attending Criminal Proceedings Listed On Same Day: Delhi High Court Restores Civil Suit Dismissed For Default Limited Permissive Use Confers No Right to Expand Trademark Beyond Agreed Territories: Bombay High Court Enforces Consent Decree in ‘New Indian Express’ Trademark Dispute Assam Rifles Not Entitled to Parity with Indian Army Merely Due to Similar Duties: Delhi High Court Dismisses Equal Pay Petition Article 21 Rights Not Absolute In Cases Threatening National Security: Supreme Court Sets Aside Bail Granted In Jnaneshwari Express Derailment Case A Computer Programme That Solves a Technical Problem Is Not Barred Under Section 3(k): Madras High Court Allows Patent for Software-Based Data Lineage System Premature Auction Without 30-Day Redemption Violates Section 176 and Bank’s Own Terms: Orissa High Court Quashes Canara Bank’s Gold Loan Sale Courts Can’t Stall Climate-Resilient Public Projects: Madras High Court Lifts Status Quo on Eco Park, Pond Works at Race Club Land No Cross-Examination, No Conviction: Gujarat High Court Quashes Customs Penalty for Violating Principles of Natural Justice ITAT Was Wrong in Disregarding Statements Under Oath, But Additions Unsustainable Without Corroborative Evidence: Madras High Court Deduction Theory Under Old Land Acquisition Law Has No Place Under 2013 Act: Punjab & Haryana High Court Enhances Compensation for Metro Land Acquisition UIT Cannot Turn Around After Issuing Pattas, It's Estopped Now: Rajasthan High Court Private Doctor’s Widow Eligible for COVID Insurance if Duty Proven: Supreme Court Rebukes Narrow Interpretation of COVID-Era Orders Smaller Benches Cannot Override Constitution Bench Authority Under The Guise Of Clarification: Supreme Court Criticises Judicial Indiscipline Public Premises Act, 1971 | PP Act Overrides State Rent Control Laws for All Tenancies; Suhas Pophale Overruled: Supreme Court Court Has No Power To Reduce Sentence Below Statutory Minimum Under NDPS Act: Supreme Court Denies Relief To Young Mother Convicted With 23.5 kg Ganja Non-Compliance With Section 52-A Is Not Per Se Fatal: Supreme Court Clarifies Law On Sampling Procedure Under NDPS Act MBA Degree Doesn’t Feed the Stomach: Delhi High Court Says Wife’s Qualification No Ground to Deny Maintenance

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