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 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]
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Headnotes prepared by: Divya Pandey. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.