Paragraph numbers below are the court’s original numbering, recovered from the source text.
16. Learned counsel contended that since the Ministry of Finance, Government of India, had also endorsed the views expressed in the circulars dated 11th March, 2002 and 29th March, 2003 issued by the Government of Karnataka, the learned Division Bench of the High Court fell in error while denying relief to the appellants and in refusing to protect their services by granting them the benefits of these circulars. He also asserted that the subsequent communication via Office Memorandum issued by the Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment on 8th July, 2013 relied upon by the respondents cannot be read and employed to the detriment of the appellants because the same does not have retrospective application.
17. Learned counsel further submitted that the Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court erred in denying relief to the appellants by relying upon the judgment in the case of Chairman and Managing Director Food Corporation of India and Others v. Jagadish Balaram Bahira and Others 2 because the ratio of the said judgment is based on the interpretation of the “Maharashtra Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, De-notified Tribes (Vimukta Jatis), Nomadic Tribes, Other Backward Classes, and Special Backward Category (Regulation of Issuance and Verification of) Caste Certificate Act, 2000”, which was a special enactment specific to the State of Maharashtra. No such enactment exists in the State of Karnataka, which, in contrast, had issued circulars dated 11th March, 2002 and 29th March, 2003, protecting those individuals who had obtained Caste Certificates on the basis of pre-existing circulars issued by the State by referring to the synonymous castes.
18. On these grounds, learned counsel for the appellants implored the Court to accept the appeals; set aside the impugned orders; and command the respondents to protect the services of the appellants. Submissions on behalf of the respondents:-
19. E-converso, learned counsel representing the respondents, vehemently and fervently opposed the contentions advanced on behalf of the appellants. They urged that the appellants had procured employment against the reserved category seats based on false Caste Certificates and thus, they are not entitled to protect their services. It was submitted that the Government circulars dated 11th March, [2017] 11 SCR 271 : (2017) 8 SCC 670 [2024] 8 S.C.R. K. Nirmala & Ors. v. Canara Bank & Anr. 2002 and 29th March, 2003 issued by the Government of Karnataka provided protection only to the individuals employed in the State services and thus, the said circulars could not have enured to the benefit of individuals akin to the appellants who procured employment with the Central Government/Government of India Undertakings/ Autonomous Institutions over which the Government of India has deep and pervasive control.
20. Learned counsel for the respondents stressed upon the Office Memorandum dated 8th July, 2013 issued by the Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment, Government of India referring to the Government of Karnataka circular dated 11th March, 2002 and urged that the synonymous castes, Kotegara, Kotekshathriya, Koteyava, Koteyar, Ramakshathriya, Sherugara, and Sarvegara, etc. are not mentioned in the Scheduled Castes list of the State of Karnataka and therefore, the members of these synonymous castes i.e., the appellants herein cannot claim the benefits of the Scheduled Caste category even in the State of Karnataka.
21. Learned counsel submitted that the controversy at hand is squarely covered by the Constitution Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Milind (supra), wherein it has been laid down beyond the pale of doubt that the States have no power to amend the Presidential Orders issued under Article 341 of the Constitution of India. The power to include or exclude, amend or alter the Presidential Order is expressly and exclusively conferred on and vested with the Parliament, and that too by making law in this regard, and thus, the appellants were rightly denied relief by the Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court.
22. Learned counsel representing the respondent No.1-bank, urged that the appellants are not entitled to claim protection of their services which they procured against the reserved seats on the basis of false or fake Caste Certificates.
23. Learned counsel representing the other respondents-employers adopted the above submissions and implored the Court to dismiss the appeals and affirm the judgments rendered by the High Court.
24. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the submissions advanced at the bar and have gone through the impugned judgments and the material placed on record. 880 Discussion and Conclusion: –
25. At the outset, it is to be noted that there is no dispute over the fact that the appellants obtained their Caste Certificates(under the Scheduled Castes category) by following the due process of law. When these Caste Certificates were issued, the synonymous caste, as of the appellants had been included in the list of Scheduled Castes by virtue of the circular issued by the Government of Karnataka, albeit by exercising powers that were not vested in the State.
26. As held by the Constitution Bench in Milind (supra), any inclusion or exclusion in or from the list of Scheduled Castes can only be made through an Act of Parliament under Articles 341 and 342 of the Constitution of India. As a corollary thereto, neither the State Government nor the Courts have the authority to modify the list of Scheduled Castes as promulgated by the Presidential order under the above Articles.
27. For this precise reason, pursuant to the judgment in Milind (supra), the Government of Karnataka took the only permissible decision to de-schedule the castes to which the appellants herein belonged. However, considering the fact that the Caste Certificates issued to the appellants under the previous inclusions made by the State Government to the Scheduled Castes list, albeit under a legal misconception was not obtained through misrepresentation or fraud, the State Government took the pragmatic decision to protect the employment of those individuals who had been benefited by these Caste Certificates obtained prior to issuance of the Government circulars dated 11th March, 2002 and 29th March, 2003. There is no dispute on the fact that each of the appellants herein fall within this category. These Government circulars clearly stipulate that individuals who secured employment based on the Caste Certificates issued under the erroneous Government circulars/orders would no longer be entitled to claim future benefits under such certificates and would henceforth be treated as General Merit category candidates for all practical purposes.
28. The Ministry of Finance, Government of India, while referring to the Government of Karnataka’s circular dated 29th March 2003, clarified and recommended that in cases where a Scheduled Caste employee(s) has been de-scheduled after an appointment in the Bank, the concerned employee(s) may be treated under the General [2024] 8 S.C.R. K. Nirmala & Ors. v. Canara Bank & Anr. Merit category, and any disciplinary cases pending against him/her should be withdrawn, and such employee(s) would have to surrender the original Caste certificate to the Competent Authority.
29. There cannot be any two views on the proposition that with the issuance of the Government of Karnataka’s circulars dated 11th March, 2002 and 29th March, 2003, the Scheduled Caste Certificates held by the appellants herein stood automatically revoked and they were brought under the unreserved category with effect from 12th March, 1987.
30. In the case of Milind (supra), this Court was dealing with the issue regarding the State’s power to amend the Presidential Order. It was held that the State has no jurisdiction to tinker with the Presential Orders issued under Article 341 of the Constitution of India. It was not even urged by the learned counsel for the appellants that the certificates held by the appellants based on the erroneous list of inclusion issued by the State Government were valid or should be protected. Their only prayer was to protect the services of the appellants while conceding that their Caste Certificates would be deemed invalid and that they would not be entitled to any future benefits under the reserved category.
31. Even in the case of Milind (supra), while concluding the judgment, this Court saved the services of the respondents therein in the following manner:- “38. Respondent 1 joined the medical course for the year 1985-86. Almost 15 years have passed by now. We are told he has already completed the course and may be he is practising as a doctor. In this view and at this length of time it is for nobody’s benefit to annul his admission. Huge amount is spent on each candidate for completion of medical course. No doubt, one Scheduled Tribe candidate was deprived of joining medical course by the admission given to Respondent 1. If any action is taken against Respondent 1, it may lead to depriving the service of a doctor to the society on whom public money has already been spent. In these circumstances, this judgment shall not affect the degree obtained by him and his practising as a doctor. But we make it clear that he cannot claim to 882 belong to the Scheduled Tribe covered by the Scheduled Tribes Order. In other words, he cannot take advantage of the Scheduled Tribes Order any further or for any other constitutional purpose. Having regard to the passage of time, in the given circumstances, including interim orders passed by this Court in SLP (C) No. 16372 of 1985 and other related matters, we make it clear that the admissions and appointments that have become final, shall remain unaffected by this judgment.” (emphasis added)
32. The circulars dated 11th March, 2002 and 29th March, 2003 were issued by the Government of Karnataka whereby, protection was extended to the persons who had taken advantage of the Caste Certificates issued prior to issuance of the letter dated 12th March, 1987, by the Ministry of Finance, Government of India. Subsequently, the Ministry of Finance, Government of India vide office memorandum dated 17th August, 2005 also ratified this decision of the State, and extended the protection granted by the Government of Karnataka to the employees of the respondent No.1-bank.
33. On a close scrutiny of the Office Memorandum dated 8th July, 2013, which was heavily relied upon by the learned counsel for the respondents, it transpires that the concerned authority in para 3 of the Office Memorandum referred only to the Government circular dated 11th March, 2002 issued by the Government of Karnataka for excluding certain castes from the umbrella of protection. It states that “the Government Notification dated 11th March 2002 related to Parivara, Talwar, Maleru, Kuruba, Besta, and Koli communities, whose members had obtained Scheduled Tribe certificates. In the said order there is no mention of Kotegara, Kotekshathriya, Koteyava, Koteyar, Ramakshathriya, Sherugara, and Sarvegara, etc castes.”
34. Apparently thus, the above Office Memorandum was issued in ignorance of the Government of Karnataka’s circular dated 29th March 2003, which further extended the protection granted by the earlier Government circular dated 11th March, 2002 to the communities including Kotegara, Kotekshathriya, Koteyava, Koteyar, Ramakshathriya, Sherugara, and Sarvegara as well. This Government circular seems to have completely escaped the notice of the Ministry [2024] 8 S.C.R. K. Nirmala & Ors. v. Canara Bank & Anr. of Social Justice and Empowerment, Government of India while issuing the Office Memorandum dated 8th July, 2013. Clearly thus, the Office Memorandum suffers from the vice of non-consideration of a vital document being the circular dated 29th March, 2003 issued by the Government of Karnataka. Hence, we have no hesitation in holding that the Office Memorandum dated 8th July, 2013, cannot supersede the communication dated 17th August, 2005 issued by the Ministry of Finance and the same cannot be read to the prejudice of the appellants.
35. In wake of the discussion made above, we conclude that the appellants are entitled to protection of their services by virtue of the Government circular dated 29th March, 2003 issued by the Government of Karnataka as ratified by communication dated 17th August, 2005 issued by the Ministry of Finance. The circular dated 29th March, 2003 issued by the Government of Karnataka specifically extended protection to various castes, including those which were excluded in the earlier Government circular dated 11th March, 2002. This subsequent circular covered the castes such as Kotegara, Kotekshathriya, Koteyava, Koteyar, Ramakshathriya, Sherugara, and Sarvegara, thus, 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. Additionally, the communication issued by the Ministry of Finance dated 17th August, 2005 reinforced the protective umbrella to the concerned bank employees and also saved them from departmental and criminal action.
36. There is an additional feature in Civil Appeals @ SLP(C) Nos. 23500- 23501 of 2019, that must be highlighted. The appellant, in the said appeals namely Smt. Hemavathy, contends that she secured 8th rank in the Bachelor of Engineering course with a specialization in Industrial Production from Mysore University in 1995. It was argued on her behalf that regardless of the Caste Certificate, the appellant would have secured a job at Hindustan Aeronautics Limited(hereinafter being referred to as ‘HAL’) based on her merit in engineering degree and that the show cause notice was issued as women employees are not welcome in the institution(HAL). This significant contention raised by the appellant has not been adequately traversed by the respondent-HAL in their counter affidavit. 884
37. Consequently, we hold that the proposed action of the respondent banks/undertakings in issuing notice(s) to the appellants to show cause as to why their services may not be terminated cannot be sustained and are hereby quashed.
38. As a result, the impugned judgments rendered by the Division Bench do not stand to scrutiny, and hence, the same are quashed and set aside.
39. The appeals are accordingly allowed in these terms. No costs.
40. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of. Result of the case: Appeals allowed. †Headnotes prepared by: Divya Pandey