K. NIRMALA & ORS. versus CANARA BANK & ANR.

Citation: [2024] 8 S.C.R. 868 · Decided: 28-08-2024 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: HIMA KOHLI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[2024] 8 S.C.R. 868 : 2024 INSC 634
K. Nirmala & Ors. 
v. 
Canara Bank & Anr.
(Civil Appeal No(s). 9916-9920 of 2024)
28 August 2024
[Hima Kohli and Sandeep Mehta,* JJ.]
Issue for Consideration
Whether a person who joined the services of a Nationalized 
Bank/Government of India undertaking based on a certificate that 
identified him/her as belonging to a Scheduled Caste/Scheduled 
Tribe in the State of Karnataka, pursuant to the State Government’s 
notifications, would be entitled to retain the position after the caste/
tribe was de-scheduled.
Headnotes†
Service Law – Appellants were employed by respondent 
No.1-bank in the Scheduled Castes Category based on 
Caste Certificates obtained following due process of law, 
certifying that they belonged to the ‘Kotegara’ community, a 
synonymous caste which was made equivalent to the caste 
called ‘Kotegar Matri’ (included in the Scheduled Castes list) 
by a Circular issued by the State of Karnataka – However, 
in view of the decision of the Constitution Bench in Milind 
case holding that any inclusion/exclusion in or from the 
list of Scheduled Castes can only be made through an Act 
of Parliament u/Articles 341 and 342 of the Constitution of 
India, the State of Karnataka de-scheduled the castes of the 
appellants – Show cause notices issued to the appellants 
to show cause as to why their services be not terminated – 
Writ petitions filed by appellants, rejected by High Court – 
Interference with:
Held: Impugned judgments quashed and set aside – Proposed 
action of the respondent banks in issuing show cause notices to 
the appellants, is unsustainable and quashed – Circulars dated 
11.03.2002 and 29.03.2003 were issued by State Government 
* Author
[2024] 8 S.C.R. 
869
K. Nirmala & Ors. v. Canara Bank & Anr.
protecting the employment of those who benefited by these Caste 
Certificates obtained prior to issuance of the aforesaid circulars – 
Thus, appellants are entitled to protection of their services by virtue 
of the circular dated 29.03.2003, as ratified by communication dated 
17.08.2005 issued by the Ministry of Finance, which specifically 
extended protection to various castes including those which were 
excluded in the earlier Government circular dated 11.03.2002 and 
covered the castes such as Kotegara, Kotekshathriya, Koteyava, 
Koteyar, Ramakshathriya, Sherugara and Sarvegara, ensuring 
that individuals of these castes holding Scheduled Castes 
Certificates issued prior to de-scheduling would be entitled to 
claim protection of their services albeit as unreserved candidates 
for all future purposes – The aforesaid communication dated 
17.08.2005 reinforced the protective umbrella to the concerned 
bank employees and also saved them from departmental and 
criminal action. [Paras 35, 37]
Case Law Cited
State of Maharashtra v. Milind and Others [2000] Supp. 5 SCR 
65 : (2001) 1 SCC 4 – followed.
Chairman and Managing Director Food Corporation of India and 
Others v. Jagadish Balaram Bahira and Others [2017] 11 SCR 
271 : (2017) 8 SCC 670 – referred to.
List of Acts
Constitution of India.
List of Keywords
Articles 341 and 342 of the Constitution of India; Government 
circular; De-scheduling of castes; Castes de-scheduled; State 
of Karnataka; Scheduled Caste (SC)/Scheduled Tribe (ST); 
Scheduled Castes Certificates; Castes redesignated under the 
list of SC/ST; Scheduled Castes Category; Caste Certificates; 
‘Kotegara’ community, ‘Kotegar Matri’; Synonymous caste; 
Scheduled Castes list; Show cause notices; Nationalized Bank/
Government of India undertaking; False or fake Caste Certificates; 
Government Circulars.
870
[2024] 8 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
Case Arising From
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal Nos. 9916-9920 
of 2024
From the Judgment and Order dated 24.04.2019 of the High Court 
of Karnataka at Bengaluru in WA Nos. 189, 190, 191, 192 and 193 
of 2019
With
Civil Appeal Nos. 9922, 9923-9924 and 9921 of 2024
Appearances for Parties
K.V. Dhananjay, A Velan, Ms. Navpreet Kaur, Dheeraj SA, Vikash 
Chandra Shukla, Seetharaman Venkat, Aishvary Vikram, Tarun Gulia, 
Ajay Awasthi, Siddhartha Relan, Mukul Rathor, Anil Katarki, Ms. 
Veena Katarki, Anurag Katarki, Deva Vrat Anand, T. R. B. Sivakumar, 
Advs. for the Appellants.
Nishant Patil, A.A.G., Dhruv Mehta, Sr. Adv., Rajesh Kumar Gautam, 
Anant Gautam, Ms. Nishi Sangtani, Samir Mudgil, R.P. Daida, Ms. 
Kavitoli G Yeptho, Ms. Likivi Jakhalu, Kushagra Nilesh Sahay, Arvind 
Ray, Tridibe Bose,

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.