Case at a Glance
Candidates of the Tanti-Tantwa community applied for Trade Instructor (Fitter) posts under Advertisement No. 10 of 2023 of the Bihar Technical Service Commission in the Scheduled Caste category, passed the examination and were called for document verification. After the Supreme Court set aside Bihar’s 1 July 2015 Resolution extending SC quota posts to Tanti-Tantwa, the Commission assessed them as Extremely Backward Class candidates, and none met the EBC cut-off. A Division Bench of the Patna High Court upheld their exclusion, holding that the Supreme Court ruling operates retrospectively absent any declaration of prospectivity, and that the candidates had no indefeasible right to selection in an unfinished process.
Five appellants applied for the post of Trade Instructor (Fitter) under Advertisement No. 10 of 2023 conducted by the Bihar Technical Service Commission, claiming the Scheduled Caste category — appellants 1 and 2 on the basis of belonging to the Tanti-Tantwa caste. They were declared successful in the examination and called for document verification. A General Administration Department Resolution of 1 July 2015 had extended SC reserved-quota posts to the Tanti-Tantwa community, but the Supreme Court in Dr. Bhim Rao Ambedkar Vichar Manch Bihar, Patna v. State of Bihar set that Resolution aside, directing that posts given to Tanti-Tantwa members be returned to the SC quota and such members be accommodated in their original EBC category.
In compliance, a Gazette Notification was issued on 12 August 2024 and the Labour Resources Department, by letters of 4 and 19 September 2024, directed the Commission to rectify the merit list. On 15 October 2024 the Commission asked candidates to submit valid caste certificates, and by Resolution dated 30 October 2024 excluded the appellants from the zone of consideration because they did not meet the EBC cut-off. A Single Judge dismissed their writ petition on 11 August 2025, and they appealed.
The Key Question Before the Court
Could the Supreme Court’s ruling treating Tanti-Tantwa as an EBC caste be applied to a recruitment that began before the ruling, when the candidates had applied, and qualified, as Scheduled Caste candidates?
Retrospective effect unless the Supreme Court says otherwise
The appellants argued that the rules of the game cannot be changed mid-way, that their caste certificates had been issued by the State Caste Scrutiny Committee, and that the caste criteria at the time of the application should govern. The Commission and the State replied that once the 2015 Resolution was set aside, Tanti-Tantwa candidates belong to the EBC category; the 12 August 2024 notification applied because the selection had not been finalised; and none of the appellants made the EBC cut-off.
The Division Bench agreed with the Single Judge. The Single Judge had relied on Directorate of Revenue Intelligence v. Raj Kumar Arora for the principle that a judicial decision operates retrospectively unless declared prospective, on Kanishk Sinha v. State of West Bengal that prospectivity cannot be inferred without a specific observation, and on the High Court’s own Division Bench ruling in Ashutosh Kumar v. State of Bihar (concerning the ‘Lohar’ caste after Sunil Kumar Rai v. State of Bihar), which in turn relied on Tej Prakash Pathak v. Rajasthan High Court, (2024) 11 SC CK 0001 to hold that a candidate has no indefeasible right to the post. The Bench held that the issue was “no more res integra”, the only difference being that the caste in Ashutosh Kumar was Lohar, and that the appellants were rightly considered as EBC candidates.
What the Court Actually Held
- Following the Supreme Court’s ruling in Dr. Bhim Rao Ambedkar Vichar Manch Bihar, Patna v. State of Bihar, Tanti-Tantwa caste is treated as an EBC category, not Scheduled Caste.
- Unless the Supreme Court specifically declares prospective operation, its decision applies retrospectively, including to recruitment processes not yet finalised.
- Candidates who applied as SC on the strength of the 2015 Resolution were correctly assessed as EBC candidates; none met the EBC cut-off.
- The Single Judge’s dismissal of the writ petition was upheld and the Letters Patent Appeal was dismissed.
Why This Judgment Matters
- The ruling affects many Tanti-Tantwa candidates in ongoing Bihar recruitments who had applied under the SC category after 2015.
- It confirms the Patna High Court’s consistent approach (Lohar, now Tanti-Tantwa) that striking down a caste inclusion applies to unfinished selections.
- It reiterates that qualifying in an exam or being called for document verification does not create an indefeasible right to appointment.
What Should Advocates Take Away From the Judgment?
For Candidates
- If your reserved-category claim depends on a resolution or notification under challenge, keep an alternative category claim and certificate ready.
- Check the cut-off in your original (here EBC) category; that is the category in which you will be assessed after such rulings.
For Counsel
- Arguments that ‘rules cannot change mid-way’ are unlikely to succeed where a Supreme Court ruling, not a policy change, alters caste status.
- Look for an express declaration of prospectivity in the Supreme Court judgment — without it, courts will not infer one (Kanishk Sinha v. State of West Bengal).
Key Takeaways
- Tanti-Tantwa candidates in Bihar are to be considered under the EBC category.
- A Supreme Court ruling setting aside a caste-inclusion resolution operates retrospectively unless it says otherwise.
- Recruitments not finalised when the ruling came must follow it.
- Being successful in the exam does not give an indefeasible right to the post.
Frequently Asked Questions
Is Tanti-Tantwa a Scheduled Caste in Bihar?
According to this judgment, after the Supreme Court set aside the 1 July 2015 Resolution, Tanti-Tantwa caste is treated as an Extremely Backward Class (EBC) category, and its members are accommodated under EBC.
Did the High Court protect candidates who had applied before the Supreme Court ruling?
No. It held that the ruling applies retrospectively absent a specific declaration of prospectivity, and the recruitment had not been finalised.
What happened to the appellants?
They were assessed as EBC candidates, did not meet the EBC cut-off, and their exclusion from the zone of consideration was upheld.
Conclusion
The Patna High Court has applied the Supreme Court’s Tanti-Tantwa ruling to a pending Trade Instructor recruitment, confirming that candidates who applied as SC must now compete as EBC candidates. The decision follows the Court’s earlier approach in the Lohar caste cases.
Practical takeaway: When a caste-inclusion resolution is struck down by the Supreme Court, ongoing selections will apply the corrected category unless the Supreme Court has expressly made its ruling prospective.
For more judgments, legal opinions and case analysis, visit courtkutchehry.com