LexUNION OF INDIA & ORS. versus ROHIT NANDAN
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2024] 12 S.C.R. 617 : 2024 INSC 984 Union of India & Ors. v. Rohit Nandan Civil Appeal No(s). 14394 of 2024 13 December 2024 [Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha* and Manoj Misra, JJ.] Issue for Consideration Issue arose as regards entitlement of respondent-employee’s claim to the benefit of Scheduled Caste category, when the respondent appointed on the basis of his ‘Tanti’ Caste Certificate, the ‘Tanti’ caste was deleted from the list of OBCs and merged with Pan/ Swasi caste in the list of Scheduled Castes. Headnotes† Constitution of India – Art.341 – Scheduled Castes list – Merging of caste “Tanti” with the caste ‘Pan/Sawasi’ in the list of Scheduled Castes – Entitlement of employee’s claim to the benefit of Scheduled Caste category – Appointment of the respondent-employee under the Other Backward Classes category on the basis of ‘Tanti’ caste certificate – State Government vide notification deleted ‘Tanti’ caste from the list of OBCs and merged it with ‘Pan/Swasi’ caste in the list of Scheduled Castes – Respondent obtained Scheduled Caste Certificate as a member of ‘Pan/Swasi’ caste and necessary changes made in the Service Record – Meanwhile, the respondent applied for promotion as a Scheduled Caste candidate, however, his name not approved since he was held not entitled to claim benefit of Scheduled Caste category – Tribunal dismissed the respondent’s application, however, the High Court allowed the writ petition – Correctness: Held: During pendency of this appeal, the same issue was decided by this Court in Dr. Bhim Rao Ambedkar’s case holding that the exercise of taking out ‘Tanti’ from Extremely Backward Classes list issued and its merger with the Scheduled Caste list is bad, illegal and unsustainable – In view thereof, the respondent cannot claim the benefits of the Scheduled Caste category – After the decision of this Court in the case of Dr. Bhim Rao Ambedkar, the issue as * Author 618 [2024] 12 S.C.R. Digital Supreme Court Reports regards the claim of reservation as Scheduled Caste candidate does not subsist – Furthermore, the earlier decisions stand on different footing wherein long standing appointments continued over a period of time, because of which court felt, on equitable considerations, not to disturb their employment – On facts, the respondent was appointed to said promotional post in December 2023 – Benefit of his illegal categorisation as a Scheduled Caste candidate, accrued to him was for a short period of less than a year and that too during the pendency of the said appeal – No equities in favour of the respondent like that of the candidates in earlier cases – Order cannot be passed directing continuation of the respondent on the basis of the illegal certification as Scheduled Caste – Judgment of the High Court set aside and that of the tribunal restored. [Paras 8, 9, 12, 13, 15, 16] Case Law Cited Dr. Bhim Rao Ambedkar Vichar Manch Bihar v. State of Bihar [2024] 7 SCR 796 : 2024 INSC 528; K. Nirmala v. Canara Bank [2024] 8 SCR 868 : 2024 INSC 634 – Distinguished. State of Maharashtra v. Milind & Ors [2000] Supp. 5 SCR 65 : (2001) 1 SCC 4 – referred to. List of Acts Bihar Reservation of Vacancies in Posts and Services (For Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes) Act, 1991. List of Keywords Art.341 Constitution of India; List of Scheduled Castes; Tanti caste; Pan/Swasi caste; Equity jurisdiction; Benefit of Scheduled Caste category; ‘Tanti’ Caste Certificate; Merging of caste “Tanti” with the caste ‘Pan/Sawasi’ in list of Scheduled Castes; Extremely Backward Classes; Bhim Rao Ambedkar’s case; Equitable considerations; Illegal categorisation as Scheduled Caste candidate; Illegal certification as Scheduled Caste. Case Arising From CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 14394 of 2024 From the Judgment and Order dated 19-01-2023 of the High Court of Judicature at Patna in CWJC No. 12096 of 2022 [2024] 12 S.C.R. 619 Union of India & Ors. v. Rohit Nandan Appearances for Parties K.M. Nataraj, A.S.G., Ms. R. Bala, Sr. Adv., Amrish Kumar, Ms. Shradha Deshmukh, Ms. Aakanksha Kaul, Sarthak Karol, Rohit Khare, Piyush Beriwal, Advs. for the Appellants. Anilendra Pandey, Rajeev Kumar Ranjan, Ms. Priya Kashyap, Nadeem Hussain, M/s. Ranjan and Company, Advs. for the Respondent. Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court Judgment Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha, J. 1. Leave granted. 2. The Union of India is in appeal against the
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.