Summary
Employees of a nationalised bank and Government of India undertakings were appointed against reserved posts on SC/ST certificates validly issued under Karnataka circulars treating their communities as synonymous with scheduled castes or tribes. After the communities were de-scheduled following Milind, the Supreme Court held their services protected as general category employees under the Karnataka circular of 29.03.2003 and the Finance Ministry communication of 17.08.2005, and quashed the show-cause notices proposing termination.
Issues
- Whether persons who obtained Scheduled Caste/Tribe certificates by due process under Karnataka circulars, later found to be beyond the State's power under Articles 341 and 342, may retain employment in a nationalised bank or Central undertaking after their communities were de-scheduled.
- Whether the Karnataka circulars of 11.03.2002 and 29.03.2003, as endorsed by the Ministry of Finance communication of 17.08.2005, protect such employees.
- Whether the Office Memorandum of the Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment dated 08.07.2013 can be applied to deny that protection.
Provisions considered
- Articles 341 and 342, Constitution of IndiaFollowing the Constitution Bench in Milind, inclusion in or exclusion from the Scheduled Castes/Tribes lists can be made only by Parliament by law; the State's circulars treating synonymous communities as scheduled castes were beyond its power, and de-scheduling was the only permissible course. (¶¶ 4, 7, 25, 26, 27, 30)
- Protection of employees appointed on certificates issued under earlier synonymous-caste circulars, Government of Karnataka circulars dated 11.03.2002 and 29.03.2003These circulars treat such employees as general merit candidates, bar future reserved-category benefits and protect their employment; the 2003 circular extended this to the Kotegara and related communities, covering the appellants. (¶¶ 9, 27, 29, 32, 35)
- Paragraph 4, Ministry of Finance (Department of Financial Services), Government of India, communication dated 17.08.2005It provides that a bank employee whose caste is de-scheduled after appointment may be treated as general category, with pending disciplinary cases withdrawn on surrender of the certificate; the Court held it ratified the State's protection for bank employees. (¶¶ 15, 28, 32, 35)
- Paragraph 3, Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment Office Memorandum dated 08.07.2013It referred only to the 2002 circular and overlooked the 2003 circular extending protection to the Kotegara and related communities; for non-consideration of that vital document it could not override the 2005 communication or prejudice the appellants. (¶¶ 20, 33, 34)
Held
- Only Parliament, by law under Articles 341 and 342, can include or exclude a caste or tribe in the Presidential lists; neither the State Government nor the courts can modify those lists, and the State rightly de-scheduled the communities it had wrongly treated as synonymous with listed castes. (¶¶ 7, 26, 27)
- The appellants' caste certificates were obtained by due process under the State circulars then in force, not by misrepresentation or fraud, though the circulars were issued without power; the certificates cannot be treated as false on that account. (¶¶ 25, 27)
- The State's pragmatic decision in the circulars of 11.03.2002 and 29.03.2003 to protect the employment of such persons, treating them as general merit candidates without future reserved-category benefits, covers the appellants. The Ministry of Finance communication of 17.08.2005 extended that protection to bank employees and saved them from departmental and criminal action. (¶¶ 27, 28, 32, 35)
- Milind itself, while denying the respondent there the benefit of the Scheduled Tribes Order, left admissions and appointments that had become final unaffected; the appellants likewise only sought protection of their services while accepting that their certificates were invalid for future benefits. (¶¶ 30, 31)
- An office memorandum issued in ignorance of a vital earlier circular suffers from non-consideration of relevant material; the Office Memorandum of 08.07.2013 therefore could not supersede the 2005 communication or be read against the appellants. (¶¶ 33, 34)
- The show-cause notices proposing termination of the appellants' services could not be sustained and were quashed. The Court also noted that HAL had not adequately answered one appellant's contention that she would have been appointed on merit regardless of her certificate. (¶¶ 36, 37)
Result
Appeals allowed; Division Bench judgments of the Karnataka High Court set aside; show-cause notices issued by the employer banks/undertakings quashed; appellants' services protected as unreserved candidates; no costs.