UNION OF INDIA & ORS. vs. ROHIT NANDAN

A) ABSTRACT / HEADNOTE

The case Union of India & Ors. v. Rohit Nandan revolves around the entitlement of a respondent-employee to claim benefits under the Scheduled Caste (SC) category after the Tanti caste was removed from the list of Other Backward Classes (OBCs) and merged with the Pan/Swasi caste under the SC category through a State Government notification. The respondent, originally appointed under the OBC category based on his Tanti caste certificate, obtained a Scheduled Caste certificate after the notification and sought a change in his service records. Upon applying for promotion under the SC category, his claim was rejected, leading him to file a case before the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), which ruled against him. However, the High Court of Patna set aside the tribunal’s order, recognizing his SC status.

The Supreme Court, relying on the recent decision in Dr. Bhim Rao Ambedkar Vichar Manch Bihar v. State of Bihar ([2024] 7 SCR 796), held that the State Government’s decision to remove “Tanti” from OBC and merge it with the Scheduled Caste list was unconstitutional, illegal, and unsustainable. The Court emphasized that only Parliament has the authority to amend the SC list under Article 341 of the Indian Constitution, and thus, the respondent could not claim SC benefits. The Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s ruling and restored the decision of the CAT, confirming that the respondent shall remain an OBC and not an SC candidate.

Keywords:

Article 341, Constitution of India, Scheduled Caste List, Tanti Caste, Pan/Swasi Caste, Equitable Considerations, Bihar Reservation Act, 1991, Dr. Bhim Rao Ambedkar Case, Illegal Caste Categorization, Judicial Review, Service Benefits

B) CASE DETAILS

i) Judgement Cause Title

Union of India & Ors. v. Rohit Nandan

ii) Case Number

Civil Appeal No. 14394 of 2024

iii) Judgement Date

December 13, 2024

iv) Court

Supreme Court of India

v) Quorum

Hon’ble Justices Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Manoj Misra

vi) Author

Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha

vii) Citation

[2024] 12 S.C.R. 617 : 2024 INSC 984

viii) Legal Provisions Involved

  • Article 341, Constitution of India (Powers of the President to notify Scheduled Castes)
  • Bihar Reservation of Vacancies in Posts and Services (For Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes) Act, 1991

ix) Judgments Overruled by the Case (if any)

  • High Court of Patna Judgment dated 19.01.2023 in CWJC No. 12096 of 2022

x) Case is Related to which Law Subjects?

  • Constitutional Law
  • Administrative Law
  • Service Law
  • Reservation Law

C) INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND OF JUDGEMENT

The dispute centers on the legal validity of caste reclassification through a State Government notification that removed the Tanti caste from the OBC list and merged it with the Pan/Swasi caste in the SC category. The respondent, originally appointed under the OBC category, sought SC status for promotional benefits. However, the Union of India challenged this reclassification, arguing that only Parliament has the power to modify the SC list under Article 341 of the Indian Constitution.

The Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) ruled against the respondent, but the High Court of Patna reversed the decision, allowing the respondent to claim SC benefits. The Supreme Court intervened and examined whether the State Government’s act of altering caste categories was legally permissible.

D) FACTS OF THE CASE

  1. The respondent was appointed in 1997 as a Postal Assistant under the OBC category based on his Tanti caste certificate.
  2. On July 2, 2015, the State Government issued a notification removing the Tanti caste from the OBC list and merging it with the Pan/Swasi caste in the SC list.
  3. The respondent obtained a Scheduled Caste certificate and requested a change in his service records.
  4. In 2016, he applied for a promotion under the SC category but was later disqualified.
  5. The Department of Posts rejected his claim after consulting the Department of Social Justice and Empowerment.
  6. The CAT dismissed his case in 2022.
  7. The High Court of Patna allowed his writ petition, but the Union of India appealed before the Supreme Court.
  8. During the pendency of this appeal, the Supreme Court in Dr. Bhim Rao Ambedkar Case invalidated the State Government’s notification, declaring it unconstitutional and ultra vires.
  9. The Supreme Court relied on the principle that only Parliament can alter the SC list and restored the CAT’s decision, denying the respondent’s claim.

E) LEGAL ISSUES RAISED

  1. Whether the State Government had the power to remove Tanti caste from the OBC list and merge it with the SC list under Article 341?
  2. Whether the respondent could claim SC benefits based on a State notification, despite the absence of Parliamentary approval?
  3. Whether the Supreme Court’s recent ruling in Dr. Bhim Rao Ambedkar Case rendered the respondent’s claim untenable?
  4. Whether equitable considerations should be applied to protect the respondent’s employment and promotion?

F) PETITIONER/APPELLANT’S ARGUMENTS

  1. The State Government’s action violated Article 341, which vests the power to alter the SC list exclusively in Parliament.
  2. The Supreme Court had already declared similar caste reclassifications illegal in Dr. Bhim Rao Ambedkar Vichar Manch Bihar v. State of Bihar.
  3. The respondent’s claim for SC benefits was based on an unconstitutional notification, making it null and void.
  4. Equitable considerations could not be extended as the respondent’s appointment under the SC category lasted less than a year.

G) RESPONDENT’S ARGUMENTS

  1. The State Government’s notification was a valid administrative decision, clarifying the status of the Tanti caste.
  2. The respondent had already received an SC certificate and was treated as SC in service records.
  3. The High Court correctly upheld the respondent’s rights, as no challenge was raised against the validity of the SC certificate.
  4. Equitable considerations should apply, as seen in K. Nirmala v. Canara Bank, where long-standing appointments were protected.

H) JUDGEMENT

a. RATIO DECIDENDI

  1. State Governments cannot amend the SC list under Article 341.
  2. The notification merging the Tanti caste with SC was unconstitutional.
  3. The respondent’s appointment under the SC category was illegal, and no protection could be granted.

b. OBITER DICTA

  • The Court distinguished the K. Nirmala case, stating that long-standing appointments deserved protection, whereas temporary appointments like the respondent’s did not.

c. GUIDELINES

  1. Only Parliament can modify the Scheduled Caste list under Article 341.
  2. State notifications altering caste reservations are unconstitutional.
  3. Equitable relief cannot be granted for appointments made under illegal caste categorization.

I) CONCLUSION & COMMENTS

The Supreme Court reaffirmed that caste reservations cannot be altered by State Governments, ensuring the constitutional sanctity of Article 341. The ruling aligns with Dr. Bhim Rao Ambedkar Case, preventing unlawful caste-based benefits. The decision serves as a precedent for future disputes regarding State interference in reservation policies.

J) REFERENCES

a. Important Cases Referred

  1. Dr. Bhim Rao Ambedkar Vichar Manch Bihar v. State of Bihar ([2024] 7 SCR 796)
  2. K. Nirmala v. Canara Bank ([2024] 8 SCR 868)
  3. State of Maharashtra v. Milind & Ors. ((2001) 1 SCC 4)

b. Important Statutes Referred

  1. Article 341, Constitution of India
  2. Bihar Reservation Act, 1991
Share this :
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
WhatsApp
Author picture