Court Must Conduct Inquiry on Mental Competency Before Appointing Legal Guardian - Punjab and Haryana High Court Right to Bail Cannot Be Denied Merely Due to the Sentiments of Society: Kerala High Court Grants Bail in Eve Teasing Case Supreme Court Extends Probation to 70-Year-Old in Decades-Old Family Feud Case Authorized Railway Agents Cannot Be Criminally Prosecuted for Unauthorized Procurement And Supply Of Railway Tickets: Supreme Court Anticipatory Bail Cannot Be Denied Arbitrarily: Supreme Court Upholds Rights of Accused For Valid Arbitration Agreement and Party Consent Necessary: Supreme Court Declares Ex-Parte Arbitration Awards Null and Void NDPS | Lack of Homogeneous Mixing, Inventory Preparation, and Magistrate Certification Fatal to Prosecution's Case: Punjab & Haryana High Court "May Means May, and Shall Means Shall": Supreme Court Clarifies Appellate Court's Discretion Under Section 148 of NI Act Punjab & Haryana High Court Orders Re-Evaluation of Coal Block Tender, Cites Concerns Over Arbitrary Disqualification Dying Declarations Must Be Beyond Doubt to Sustain Convictions: Madhya Pradesh High Court Acquits Accused in Burn Injury Murder Case No Legally Enforceable Debt Proven: Madras High Court Dismisses Petition for Special Leave to Appeal in Cheque Bounce Case Decisional Autonomy is a Core Part of the Right to Privacy : Kerala High Court Upholds LGBTQ+ Rights in Landmark Habeas Corpus Case Consent of a Minor Is No Defense Under the POCSO Act: Himachal Pradesh High Court Well-Known Marks Demand Special Protection: Delhi HC Cancels Conflicting Trademark for RPG Industrial Products High Court Acquits Accused Due to ‘Golden Thread’ Principle: Gaps in Medical Evidence and Unexplained Time Frame Prove Decisive Supreme Court Dissolves Marriage Citing Irretrievable Breakdown; Awards ₹12 Crore Permanent Alimony Cruelty Need Not Be Physical: Mental Agony and Emotional Distress Are Sufficient Grounds for Divorce: Supreme Court Section 195 Cr.P.C. | Tribunals Are Not Courts: Private Complaints for Offences Like False Evidence Valid: Supreme Court Limitation | Right to Appeal Is Fundamental, Especially When Liberty Is at Stake: Supreme Court Condones 1637-Day Delay FIR Quashed | No Mens Rea, No Crime: Supreme Court Emphasizes Protection of Public Servants Acting in Good Faith Trademark | Passing Off Rights Trump Registration Rights: Delhi High Court A Minor Procedural Delay Should Not Disqualify Advances as Export Credit When Exports Are Fulfilled on Time: Bombay HC Preventive Detention Must Be Based on Relevant and Proximate Material: J&K High Court Terrorism Stems From Hateful Thoughts, Not Physical Abilities: Madhya Pradesh High Court Denies Bail of Alleged ISIS Conspiracy Forwarding Offensive Content Equals Liability: Madras High Court Upholds Conviction for Derogatory Social Media Post Against Women Journalists Investigation by Trap Leader Prejudiced the Case: Rajasthan High Court Quashes Conviction in PC Case VAT | Notice Issued Beyond Limitation Period Cannot Reopen Assessment: Kerala High Court Fishing Inquiry Not Permissible Under Section 91, Cr.P.C.: High Court Quashes Trial Court’s Order Directing CBI to Produce Unrelied Statements and Case Diary Vague and Omnibus Allegations Cannot Sustain Criminal Prosecution in Matrimonial Disputes: Calcutta High Court High Court Emphasizes Assessee’s Burden of Proof in Unexplained Cash Deposits Case Effective, efficient, and expeditious alternative remedies have been provided by the statute: High Court Dismisses Petition for New Commercial Electricity Connection Maintenance Must Reflect Financial Realities and Social Standards: Madhya Pradesh High Court Upholds Interim Maintenance in Domestic Violence Land Classified as Agricultural Not Automatically Exempt from SARFAESI Proceedings: High Court Permissive Use Cannot Ripen into Right of Prescriptive Easement: Kerala High Court High Court Slams Procedural Delays, Orders FSL Report in Assault Case to Prevent Miscarriage of Justice Petitioner Did Not Endorse Part-Payments on Cheque; Section 138 NI Act Not Attracted: Madras High Court Minority Christian Schools Not Bound by Rules of 2018; Disciplinary Proceedings Can Continue: High Court of Calcutta Lack of Independent Witnesses Undermines Prosecution: Madras High Court Reaffirms Acquittal in SCST Case Proceedings Before Tribunal Are Summary in Nature and It Need Not Be Conducted Like Civil Suits: Kerala High Court Affirms Award in Accident Claim Affidavit Not Sufficient to Transfer Title Punjab and Haryana High 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.

Similar News