Supreme Court of India
K. NIRMALA & ORS.versusCANARA BANK & ANR.
- Citation
- 2024 INSC 634
- Decided
- 28 August 2024
- Disposal
- Appeal(s) allowed
- Bench
- HIMA KOHLI
Holding
Employees whose caste certificates were issued before de‑scheduling may retain their employment as unreserved staff, and the banks’ show‑cause notices terminating their services are unsustainable.
Summary
The appellants were appointed by Canara Bank and other central government undertakings in the Scheduled Caste category based on caste certificates issued under Karnataka state circulars that listed their community as a synonymous Scheduled Caste. After the Supreme Court’s decision in State of Maharashtra v. Milind, the Karnataka government de‑scheduled those castes, and the bank issued show‑cause notices seeking termination of the appellants’ services on the ground that the certificates were now invalid. The appellants contended that, although the certificates were later deemed void, they were obtained in good faith before de‑scheduling and that the Karnataka circulars of 2002‑2003 and the Ministry of Finance’s 2005 communication protected their employment as general‑category employees. The Court held that the de‑scheduling rendered the certificates ineffective for future reservation benefits, but the protective circulars and the 2005 Ministry of Finance memorandum entitled the employees to retain their posts as unreserved staff and barred any disciplinary action. Accordingly, the Supreme Court quashed the show‑cause notices, set aside the High Court’s orders and allowed the appeals.
Issues considered
- Whether employees appointed on the basis of caste certificates issued under Karnataka state circulars, which were later de‑scheduled, are entitled to retain their services.
- Whether the Karnataka circulars of 2002 and 2003 and the Ministry of Finance’s 2005 communication provide protection to such employees as general‑category staff.
- Whether the show‑cause notices issued by the banks seeking termination of services are legally sustainable.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973s. Section 482
- Constitution of Indias. Article 341, s. Article 342
Subjects
Articles 341 and 342 of the Constitution of IndiaGovernment circularDe-scheduling of castesCastes de-scheduledState of KarnatakaScheduled Caste (SC)/Scheduled Tribe (ST)Scheduled Castes CertificatesCastes redesignated under the list of SC/STScheduled Castes CategoryCaste Certificates‘Kotegara’ community, ‘Kotegar Matri’Synonymous casteScheduled Castes listShow cause noticesNationalized Bank/Government of India undertakingFalse or fake Caste CertificatesGovernment Circulars
Judgment
[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, Karanveer Singh Anand, M/s. Khaitan & Co., Rahul
Ranjan Verma, Ms. Ashmita Bisarya, Nirmal Kumar Ambastha, D. L.
Chidananda, Vignesh Adithiya S, Ayush P Shah, V. N. Raghupathy,
Advs. for the Respondents.
Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court
Judgment
Mehta, J.
1. Heard.
2. Leave granted.
3. This batch of appeals, which involves identical questions of fact and
law, arises from the judgments delivered by the Division Bench of
the High Court of Karnataka, as listed in the table below. Given the
similarities, the appeals have been heard together and are being
decided collectively.
[2024] 8 S.C.R. 871
K. Nirmala & Ors. v. Canara Bank & Anr.
SLP No(s). Writ Appeal Date of Concerned Community
No(s). Impugned Respondents/ (Scheduled
Judgement Employer Caste/
Scheduled
Tribe)
Special Writ Appeal 24th April, The Canara Kotegara (SC)
Leave No. 189-193 2019 Bank of India
Petition(C) of 2019
No. 13484-
13488 of
2019
Special Writ Appeal 3rd July, The Oriental Kuruba (ST)
Leave No. 2253 of 2019 Insurance Co.
Petition(C) 2018 (S-R) Ltd.
No. 19877
of 2019
Special Writ Appeal 3rd July, The Hindustan Kuruba (ST)
Leave No. 3666 of 2019 Aeronautics
Petition(C) 2016(S-DIS) Ltd.
No. 23500- c/w Writ
23501 of Appeal No.
2019 3483 of
2016
Special Writ Appeal 24th April, The Canara Kotegara (SC)
Leave No. 316 of 2019 Bank of India
Petition(C) 2019
No. 13453
of 2019
Civil Appeals arising out of SLP (C) No(s). 13484-13488 of 2019
shall be treated as the lead matter. The outcome of these appeals
shall govern all the connected matters.
4. The common thread that runs through these matters is as to 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(‘SC’)/Scheduled Tribe(‘ST’) in the
State of Karnataka, pursuant to the State Government’s notifications,
872 [2024] 8 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
would be entitled to retain the position after the caste/tribe has been
de-scheduled. The situation has arisen on account of the State
of Karnataka re-designating some castes under the list of SC/ST,
inspite of the fact that this jurisdiction is exclusively conferred upon
the Parliament by virtue of the scheme under Articles 341 and 342
of the Constitution of India.
5. In brief, the individual details of the appellants in the lead matter
are detailed below: -
S. Name of the Date of Date of Joining
No. Appellant herein Issuance Service
of Caste
Certificate
1. K. Nirmala/Appellant 6th February, 26th December,
No. 1 1978 1978
2. K.V. Shankar/ 17th March, 20th July, 1981
Appellant No. 2 1978
3. D.K. Prabhakar/ 17th March, 24th March, 1981
Appellant No. 3 1978
4. S. Suresh/Appellant 2nd March, 23rd March, 1981
No. 4 1981
5. Muktha S. Rao/ 30th November, 30th November,
Appellant No. 5 1987 1987
6. As evident from the table above, appellant Nos. 1 to 5 in Civil
Appeals @ SLP(C) Nos. 13484-13488 of 2019 were employed by the
Canara Bank(hereinafter referred to as ‘respondent No.1-bank’) in the
Scheduled Castes Category based on Caste Certificates, 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 Government circular
dated 21st November, 1977 issued by the State of Karnataka. It is
undisputed that the appellants duly obtained these Caste Certificates
in accordance with the prevailing Government circular.
7. A Constitution Bench of this Court in State of Maharashtra v. Milind
and Others,1 held that the State Government has no authority to
1 [2000] Supp. 5 SCR 65 : (2001) 1 SCC 4
[2024] 8 S.C.R. 873
K. Nirmala & Ors. v. Canara Bank & Anr.
amend or modify the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes list
published under Articles 341 and 342 of the Constitution of India. A
caste can only be classified as a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled
Tribe or a Socially and Educationally Backward Caste when the
Presidential Order is issued to that effect in exercise of the powers
prescribed under Articles 341, 342, and 342A of the Constitution
of India respectively. In Milind (supra), this Court held as below: -
“15. Thus, it is clear that States have no power to amend
Presidential Orders. Consequently, a party in power
or the Government of the day in a State is relieved
from the pressure or burden of tinkering with the
Presidential Orders either to gain popularity or secure
votes. Number of persons in order to gain advantage
in securing admissions in educational institutions and
employment in State services have been claiming as
belonging to either Scheduled Castes or Scheduled
Tribes depriving genuine and needy persons belonging to
Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes covered by the
Presidential Orders, defeating and frustrating to a large
extent the very object of protective discrimination given
to such people based on their educational and social
backwardness. Courts cannot and should not expand
jurisdiction to deal with the question as to whether
a particular caste, sub-caste; a group or part of tribe
or sub-tribe is included in any one of the entries
mentioned in the Presidential Orders issued under
Articles 341 and 342 particularly so when in clause (2)
of the said article, it is expressly stated that the said
Orders cannot be amended or varied except by law
made by Parliament. The power to include or exclude,
amend or alter Presidential Order is expressly and
exclusively conferred on and vested with Parliament
and that too by making a law in that regard. The
President had the benefit of consulting the States through
Governors of States which had the means and machinery
to find out and recommend as to whether a particular
caste or tribe was to be included in the Presidential Order.
If the said Orders are to be amended, it is Parliament
that is in a better position to know having the means and
874 [2024] 8 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
machinery unlike courts as to why a particular caste or
tribe is to be included or excluded by law to be made by
Parliament. Allowing the State Governments or courts or
other authorities or Tribunals to hold inquiry as to whether
a particular caste or tribe should be considered as one
included in the schedule of the Presidential Order, when
it is not so specifically included, may lead to problems. In
order to gain advantage of reservations for the purpose of
Article 15(4) or 16(4) several persons have been coming
forward claiming to be covered by Presidential Orders
issued under Articles 341 and 342. This apart, when no
other authority other than Parliament, that too by law alone
can amend the Presidential Orders, neither the State
Governments nor the courts nor Tribunals nor any authority
can assume jurisdiction to hold inquiry and take evidence
to declare that a caste or a tribe or part of or a group within
a caste or tribe is included in Presidential Orders in one
entry or the other although they are not expressly and
specifically included. A court cannot alter or amend the
said Presidential Orders for the very good reason that
it has no power to do so within the meaning, content
and scope of Articles 341 and 342. It is not possible
to hold that either any inquiry is permissible or any
evidence can be let in, in relation to a particular caste
or tribe to say whether it is included within Presidential
Orders when it is not so expressly included.
(emphasis supplied)
8. Pursuant to the judgment in the case of Milind (supra), the Ministry
of Finance, Department of Economic Affairs(Banking Division),
Government of India in consultation with the Ministry of Welfare
vide letter dated 12th March 1987, declared the State of Karnataka
circulars which included the ‘Kotegara’ caste in the list of Scheduled
Castes in the State of Karnataka to be non-est. The letter addressed
to the Chairman & Managing Director of the concerned authorities
is reproduced herein below:-
“......Persons belonging to Kotegara, Kote-Kshatriya are not
entitled to get benefits as scheduled castes in Karnataka.
These communities have never been(sic) treated as
[2024] 8 S.C.R. 875
K. Nirmala & Ors. v. Canara Bank & Anr.
scheduled castes in Karnataka. The State Government
have no power to make any amendment in the existing
lists of lists, of SCs/STs can be done only through an Act
of Parliament in view of Articles 341(2) and 342(2) of the
constitution. In view of this, the orders issued by the Govt.
of Karnataka to this effect does not have any validity.
In view of the position explained above, persons belonging
to Kotegara and Kote-Kshatriya who have been appointed
against the vacancy reserved for scheduled castes cannot
be treated as scheduled castes even at the time of their
initial appointment because these community have never
been treated as synonymous of Kotegar-Matri(sic) by
the Government of India which is in the list of SSC in
Karnataka. It is infact, entirely the responsible of employer
Department to have the matter verified through the State
Government, before accepting the claim of the candidates
who have been appointed against the reserved posts.”
9. The Government of Karnataka issued a circular dated 11th March,
2002 providing protection to individuals employed in State services
who had obtained Caste Certificates based on a synonymous
caste under the Government circulars, issued by the State. These
individuals were to be treated as having been appointed under the
General Merit(GM) category, effective from 11th March, 2002. The
said circular also provided that such candidates would not be eligible
for future promotions or any other benefits as SCs/STs, although
they could claim benefits under the respective Backward Classes
to which they belonged. Although the ‘Kotegara’ community was not
included in this circular, a subsequent circular dated 29th March, 2003
was issued by the Government of Karnataka, extending the benefits
of the circular dated 11th March, 2002 to individuals belonging to
the Kotegara, Kotekshathriya, Koteyava, Koteyar, Ramakshathriya,
Sherugara, and Sarvegara communities, who had obtained Caste
Certificates in accordance with the earlier Government circulars.
10. It is also undisputed that the Caste Certificates held by the appellants
were cancelled by the Competent Authority, namely the District
Caste Verification Committee, and this decision was communicated
to their respective employers. Subsequently, criminal proceedings
were initiated against some of the appellants at the concerned police
876 [2024] 8 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
station; however, these proceedings were quashed by the High Court
while exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973(hereinafter referred to as ‘CrPC’).
11. Respondent No. 2 i.e., Additional Director General of Police,
Directorate of Civil Rights Enforcement Cell, intimated respondent
No.1-bank to terminate the services of the appellants on the ground
that they had secured employment based on fake Caste Certificates.
In turn, respondent No.1-bank issued notices to the appellants calling
upon them to show cause as to why their services should not be
terminated. The appellants challenged the aforesaid notices by filing
writ petitions before the High Court of Karnataka which came to be
rejected.
12. Being aggrieved by the dismissal of their writ petitions, the appellants
preferred intra-Court writ appeals before the learned Division Bench
of the High Court against the order of the learned Single Judge. The
Division Bench of the High Court dismissed the intra-Court appeals.
13. This batch of appeals by special leave has been preferred to assail
the decisions of the learned Division Bench of the High Court of
Karnataka, rejecting the writ appeals as indicated in the table above.
Submissions on behalf of the appellants: -
14. Learned counsel representing the appellants, vehemently and
fervently contended that the very foundation of the case as presented
by respondent No. 1-bank and the other employers, that the Caste
Certificates held by the appellants are false/fake, is misplaced. They
contended that the Caste Certificates were validly issued by the
Competent Authority, affirming/certifying that the appellants belonged
to the Scheduled Caste as their caste had been included in the
Scheduled Castes list by virtue of the notifications/circulars issued
by the Government of Karnataka. They further submitted that the
effect of the cancellation of these Caste Certificates pursuant to the
judgment in Milind (supra) would only deprive the appellants from
claiming any additional/future service benefits including promotion
etc. based on their reserved category status. None of the appellants
had ever misrepresented themselves before the authorities regarding
their caste and the contentious Caste Certificates were issued after
following the due process of law, and thus the same cannot be
questioned as false or fake Certificates.
[2024] 8 S.C.R. 877
K. Nirmala & Ors. v. Canara Bank & Anr.
15. Learned counsel further submitted that following the Government
circulars dated 11th March, 2002 and 29th March, 2003 issued by the
Government of Karnataka, the Ministry of Finance(Department of
Financial Services)(Welfare Section), Government of India had also
issued a letter dated 17th August, 2005, to the Chairman and Managing
Director, State Bank of Mysore with the following directions: -
“2. In para 2 of this Ministry’s letter No.4(4)/2002-SCT(B)
dated 30th April, 2003, it has been suggested that where
the caste certificate is cancelled by the State Government
after consideration of the matter by the Security Committee
consisting of 3 members and where the concerned
employee was given a chance to present his case before
the Committee, no further disciplinary proceedings need
be taken and the employee’s services can be terminated
forthwith.
3. It has, inter alia, been stated in your letter under
reference that based on the Government of Karnataka’s
Order dated 29 March 2003, several employees whose
caste certificates are no longer valid, are seeking their
appointment to be considered in general category and
withdrawal of pending cases against them to permitting
them to surrender their original caste certificates to the
competent authority for cancellation.
4. In this regard, it is clarified that where the scheduled
caste has been de-scheduled/de-notified after appointment
in the Bank, the concerned employee may be treated as
a general category employee in the post based roster and
the disciplinary case, if any pending against him/her may
be withdrawn by permitting him/her to surrender the original
caste certificate to the competent authority for cancellation.”
Placing reliance on the letter dated 17th August, 2005, learned counsel
submitted that the above communication clearly provides that when
a Scheduled Caste has been de-scheduled or de-notified after an
employee(s) appointment in the bank, such employee(s) may be
reclassified as General category employee(s) in the post-based roster.
Any pending disciplinary cases against the employee(s) should be
withdrawn, requiring them to surrender the original Caste Certificate
to the Competent Authority for cancellation.
878 [2024] 8 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
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,
2 [2017] 11 SCR 271 : (2017) 8 SCC 670
[2024] 8 S.C.R. 879
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 [2024] 8 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
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. 881
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 11 th
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 [2024] 8 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
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 11 th 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. 883
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 [2024] 8 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
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
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "Articles 341 and 342 of the Constitution of India"Sign in to search