AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
ORDER
Per: Hon’ble Shri Jayesh V Bhairavia, Member (J)
The instant MA No. 1122/2025 in O.A. No. 557/2023 is a 3rd Member Reference under Section 26 of the Administrative Tribunal’s Act, 1985 filed by the original official respondent-department in O.A. No. 557/2023. It is stated that while deciding the O.A. No. 557/2023 vide order dated 26.06.2024, the Members of the Bench have expressed divergent opinion on various points related to the prayers sought in the said OA. Therefore, both the Members made a reference under Section 26 of the A.T.Act, 1985 to decide the deferred points according to the majority. It emerges from the record that the aforesaid reference was decided by the 3rd Member vide order dated 02.04.2025 (Annexure R/4).
It is apt to mention that in respect to the prayer sought by the original applicant in para 8(2) of the said OA No.557/2023, though there were divergent opinion expressed by the Members vide their order dated 26.06.2024, but inadvertently the said divergent opinion has not been referred for 3rd Member reference at the relevant time. Therefore, there was no occasion for the 3rd Member to deal with the said left out issue while disposing of the reference vide order dated 02.04.2025. As noted hereinabove, after the OA was dismissed as per the view of majority, the official respondents find difficulty to comply with the said order as there was no clear adjudication in respect to the prayer No.8(2) of the O.A. No. 557/2023 which reads as under:-
“(2)Direct the respondents to follow the mandate given by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Kum. Madhuri Patil Vs. Addl. Commissioner, Tribal Development (1994) 6 SCC 24 AND in Chairman & Managing Director FCL Vs. Jagdish Balaram Bahira & Ors (2017) 8 SCC 6701, before initiating any process of granting promotion to the “Reserved Category” persons and mandate them to insist for “Valid Caste Certificate” as per Section 3 of Maharashtra Act of 2001.”
Therefore, in absence of any conclusive and final adjudication on the aforesaid point/ prayer, there exists divergent views as expressed by two Member while deciding O.A. No. 557/2023 vide order dated 26.06.2024. Under the circumstances, the official respondents have filed the present reference seeking relief that this Tribunal be pleased to adjudicate the reference on the issue “Whether the Caste Certificate of the employee working under them i.e. Office of the Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Nagpur under Central Board of Direct Taxes, Ministry of Finance is required to be referred to the Caste Scrutiny Committee for deciding the caste validity and requirement of the Caste Validity Certificate under Maharashtra Act XXIII of 2001”
Background of the 2nd reference vide M.A. No.1122/2026 in O.A. No. 557/2023 filed by the official respondents in OA is as under :-
Since, the divergent views were expressed by the Members of the Division Bench, rendered by CAT, Mumbai Bench (CAMP at Nagpur) vide order dated 26.06.2024 in respect to prayer Nos. 1, 3, 4 & 5 sought in O.A. No. 557/2023 (Smt. Valerie Dhepe & Others v. Union of India & Others) on the various issues such as whether Members of Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes are entitled to be considered for promotion in General Category based on their open merit and on the issue of collection of quantifiable data for granting reservation in promotion by enabling Article 16(4) of the Constitution of India, therefore, the reference under Section 26 of the A.T.Act, 1985 was made for the said issues. The said reference in O.A. No.557/2023 was decided by the 3rd Member vide order dated 02.04.2025 wherein the 3rd Member agreed with the views expressed by Member(A) as mentioned in the Order dated 26.06.2024 passed in O.A. No.557/2023. Accordingly, by way of majority view, the said OA No.557/2023 was dismissed.
Thereafter, as noted herein above, at the time of implementation of the Order dated 02.04.2025 passed in O.A. No.557/2023 (3rd Member), the official respondents finds that there exists divergent view which was expressed by the Members of the Division Bench in their order dated 26.06.2024 in O.A. No. 557/2023 on the issue “Whether the Caste Certificate is required to be referred to the Caste Scrutiny Committee for deciding the caste validity and requirement of the Caste Validity Certificate under Maharashtra Act XXIII of 2001 with regard prayer 2 as sought in O.A. No. 557/2023 and the said different opinion was inadvertently not referred or forwarded to the 3rd Member at the relevant time for its conclusive decision.
Under the circumstances, the official respondents find difficulties to comply with the order passed by majority in O.A. No.557/2023 dated 02.04.2025 (by 3rd Member) as also the working Committee constituted for verification and preparing details for conducting review DPC in respect to the Group B and Group C Cadres in terms of the office order dated 12.06.2023 has find difficulty to proceed further to complete the given work. Thus, the official respondents find it necessary to file the present reference for authoritative determination of the issue in the interest of uniformity, legal clarity and administrative consistency on the issue “Whether the Caste Certificate is required to be referred to the Caste Scrutiny Committee for deciding the caste validity and requirement of the Caste Validity Certificate under Maharashtra Act XXIII of 2001.
Therefore, the official respondents by way of M.A. No. 1122/2025, have referred the said issue(s) for reference before the Hon’ble Chairman of this Tribunal under Section 26 of the Administrative Tribunal’s Act, 1985. In response to it, the decision of the Hon’ble Chairman of CAT nominating the 3rd Member to hear the present M.A. No. 1122/2025 in O.A. No. 557/2023 (Income Tax Department & Ors. Vs. Valerie Avinash Dhepe & Ors.) has been conveyed by the Deputy Registrar, Principle Bench vide order dated 28.01.2026.
Accordingly, the said reference being M.A. No. 1122/2025 in O.A. No. 577/2023 has been taken up for the hearing with the consent of counsel for the parties.
Mr. Bhaskar D Pandit, learned counsel for the applicants in MA (original official respondents in OA) mainly submitted as under:-
The official Respondent No.4 in O.A. No. 557/2023 i.e. Jt. Commissioner of Income Tax (HQ) (Admn) O/o Principle Chief Commissioner of Income Tax (Pr. CCIT), Nagpur vide order dated 12.06.2023 (which was impugned in OA No 557/2023) had constituted a Working Committee for verification and preparing details for conducting review DPCs since 1997 till date in the Group “B” and Group “C” Cadres and for the said purpose. The clause 3 of the said office order dated 12.06.2023 stipulates the work scope of the said working committee and SOP with regard to conducting review DPC. Along with various instructions as contained in clause 3 of the said order including the clause 3 (c) whereby the said Working Committee has been instructed to follow the instructions/directions issued in DoPTs OM dated 27.02.1981 and OM dated 09.09.2005 regarding verification of caste status at every important upturn of employees carrier and further the Committee has been instructed that reserved category officers/officials V who have not submitted caste validity as mandated by the Maharashtra Act No. XXIII of 2001 will not be considered for promotion from their current designation keeping in view the ratio decidendi in the matter of the Chief Regional Officer, Oriental Insurance Company Vs. Pradeep of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal no. 742/2020 as held that “Protecting the services of a candidate who is found not to belong to the community or a tribe for whom the reservation is intended substantially encroaches upon legal rights of genuine members of the reserved communities whose just entitlements are negated by the grant of a seat to an ineligible person”.
In other words, vide office order dated 12.06.2023 for recasting the seniority of all employees with effect from 1997, the respondent no. 4 constituted the Working Committee and had entrusted the various as stated in clause 3 of the said order including the work for verification of submission of caste validity certificate by the concerned employee in terms of Maharashtra Act No. XXIII of 2001 etc as mentioned in clause 3 (c) in the said office order dated 12.06.2023.
It is stated that some of the officers working under the said office/department at Nagpur namely Smt. Valerie Dhepe & Ors. being aggrieved with the said office order dated 12.06.2023 constitution and functioning of the Working Committee, particularly with reference to the various scope of works entrusted to the Working Committee such as to follow the directions issued vide CBDT’s Letter dated 27.05.2019 regarding prospective implementation of N.R. Parmar judgment and also examining instructions issued vide DoPTs OM dated 13.08.2021 in light of judgment passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in K. Meghachandra Singh & Ors. Vs. Ningam Siro & Ors. and its effective implementation in the Nagpur Region by reviewing DPC as also directed to follow DoPTs OM dated 02.07.1997 on the backdrop of R.K. Sabharwal judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and also instructions issued by DoPT vide OM dated 12.04.2022 on the backdrop of judgment passed in Jarnail Singh case, for the purpose of verification of caste status of employees carrier, implementation of the "own merit" principle as well to verify the details of submission of caste validity certificate, had filed O.A. No. 557/2023 before the CAT, Mumbai Bench (Camp at Nagpur) and had sought following relief in the said O.A. No. 557/2023 (Annexure R-1):
“(1)This Hon'ble Tribunal may quash and set aside the impugned “office order” issued by the Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, (HR) (Adm.), O/O the Pr. CCIT, Nagpur, on 12-06-2023 {ANNEXURE-P-01} as the same is arbitrary, bad in law for the grounds stated in this application.
(2)Direct the respondents to follow the mandate given by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Kum. Madhuri Patil Vs. Addl. Commissioner, Tribal Development (1994) 6 SCC 241 AND in Chairman and Managing Director FCI and Ors. Vs. Jagdish Balaram Bahira and others (2017) 8 SCC 670, before initiating any process of granting promotion to the “reserved category” persons and mandate them to insist for “valid caste certificate” as per section 3 of Maharashtra Act 23 of 2001.
(3)Restrain the respondents from granting any reservation, in promotion, to Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes, in exercise of the power conferred by Article 15, 16 (4A) (4(B) of the Constitution of India, without, in the first instance, carrying out the necessary preliminary exercise of acquiring quantifiable data indicating inadequacy of representation, of the said categories, in service, and evaluating the situation by taking into consideration the said data, along with the competing considerations of backwardness and overall efficiency in administration, and arriving empirical decision on the basis thereof as directed by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in JARNAIL SINGH V LACCHMI NARAIN GUPTA {2022-10-SCC-595}, and by Delhi High Court in All India Equality Forum Vs Union of India WP (C) 3490/2010.
(4)Restrain the respondents from implementing the OM dated 11.07.2002, 31.01.2005, 10.08.2010 in the matters of granting promotion to SC/ST candidates on the basis of “own merit concept” as these OMs are non-existent in the eyes of the law as on today due to judgment passed by Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in CWP No.13218 of 2009 decided on 15.07.2011 {ANNEXURE-P-09} and on account of OM dated 30.09.2016 issued by DOPT {ANNEXURE-P-12}.
(5)Direct the respondents to protect the promotion given to petitioners as Income Tax Inspectors in 2022 along with their inter-se seniority as the said seniority has been given as per the prevailing law and judgments.
(6)Pass any other order in the facts and circumstances of the case, in the larger interest of justice.”
It is stated that the said OA No. 557/2023 was heard at length by the Bench at Nagpur, however, while deciding the said OA, the Members of the Bench had expressed their divergent opinion on various points vide order 26.06.2024. (Annexures R-2 and R-3 refer). Therefore, since the Member of the Bench differ in opinion on various points the matter was referred to Third Member under Section 26 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 for decision/opinion by majority. Accordingly, by concurring with the opinion/view expressed by the Member (A) and conclusion of dismissal of the OA, the Third Member decided the said reference vide order dated 02.04.2025 (Annexure R-4).
Thereafter, by adhering to the order passed by this Tribunal in O.A. No. 557/2023 dated 02.04.2025 whereby the OA was dismissed by the decision of the majority Member, the official respondents initiated the process for implementation of instructions contained in office order dated 12.06.2023 (whereby the respondent no. 4 has constituted a Working Committee for verification and preparing details of conducting review DPC and for which various instructions/SOP has been stipulated in the order dated 12.06.2023), but, the applicants in the MA herein i.e. the official respondents is in receipt of a number of representations wherein the parties have agitated the grievances about implementation of provision of Maharashtra Act No. XXIII of 2001 with regard to the officials who have not submitted the caste validity certificate have been placed in their respective cadre positions prior to the year 2000.
It is stated that the applicants in MA (i.e. the official respondents in OA) find difficulties to proceed further with the instructions contained in office order dated 12.06.2023 since the Members of the Bench while expressing their divergent views with regard to prayer no. 2 of the OA but had not referred the said difference of opinion to be decided according to the opinion of the majority while they made earlier reference under Section 26 of the Administrative Tribunal’s Act 1985. The prayer no. 8 (2) of the O.A. No. 557/2023 reads as under:-
“ (2) Direct the respondents to follow the mandate given by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Kum. Madhuri Patil Vs. Addl. Commissioner, Tribal Development (1994) 6 SCC 241 AND in Chairman and Managing Director FCI and Ors. Vs. Jagdish Balaram Bahira and others (2017) 8 SCC 670, before initiating any process of granting promotion to the “reserved category” persons and mandate them to insist for “valid caste certificate” as per section 3 of Maharashtra Act 23 of 2001.”
Further, it is stated that in respect to aforesaid prayer 8 (2) of the OA, though there were divergent views expressed by the Members of the Bench in their order dated 26.06.2024 and the said points for which the Members differed in their opinion was not referred to the earlier reference and in absence of clear conclusive opinion on it the official respondents find it difficult to adhere to the order passed in O.A. No. 557/2023 dated 02.04.2025 and also faced difficulties to complete the work entrusted to the Working Committee. Therefore, the said differrred point as recorded by Members of the Bench vide order dated 26.06.2024 required to be decided according to the opinion of the majority. Hence, the present reference under the provision of Section 26 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985.
Learned counsel for the applicant in MA further submitted that while deciding the OA No.557/2023, in respect to the point about applicability of the Maharashtra Act 2001, the Hon’ble Member (J) in para 62 of the order dated 26.06.2024 had recorded the submissions of the applicants of the OA and the official respondents and intervenors i.e. private respondents, which reads as under:-
“62.Learned counsel for the applicants pointed out that Government of Maharashtra has passed the Maharashtra Act No. XXIII of 2001, The Maharashtra Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, Denotified Tribes (Vimukta Jatis), Nomadic Tribes, Other Backward Classes and Special Backward Category (Regulation of Issuance and Verification of) Caste Certificate Act, 2000 (Maharashtra Caste Certificate Act). He points out that Supreme Court in the case of Chairman and Managing Director FCI & Others versus Jagdish Balaram Bahira, 2017 8 SCC 6/ 7 held that where a candidate has obtained an appointment to a post on the solemn basis that he or she belongs to a designated caste, tribe or class for whom the post is meant and it is found upon verification by the Scrutiny Committee that the claim is false. the services of such an individual cannot be 173 67 OA.557/2023 protected by taking recourse to administrative circulars or resolutions. Protecting the services of candidate who is found not to belong to the community or tribe for whom the reservation is intended substantially encroaches upon legal rights of genuine members of the reserved communities whose just entitlements are negated by the grant of a seat to an ineligible person. Learned counsel for the respondents and intervenors submitted that Maharashtra Caste Certificate Act is a State enactment and cannot be applied to Central government employees.‖
Thereafter, the Hon’ble Member (J), by referring the provision of the Maharashtra Caste Certificate Act, 2000 (Act XXIII of 2001) and the judgment passed by the Hon’ble High Court of Bombay in the case of Arun Shankar Limje vs The Union of India and Others dated 13th March, 2020 in Writ Petition No. 9885 of 2019 and Adivasi Samaj Kruti Samiti and others versus Union of India through the Secretary and others, Writ Petition No. 7036/2011 dated 23rd October, 2013 had recorded his opinion/finding on the aforesaid point to the effect that while giving promotions, the provisions of Maharashtra Act No. XXIII of 2001 will have to be followed and the said Act is also applicable to the Central Government servant.
The relevant opinion/findings of the Judicial Member as recorded at paragraph Nos. 63, 64 and 65 vide order dated 26.06.2024 reads as under:
―63. We find no force in the submission of learned counsels for the respondents and the intervenors. Section 4(2) of the Maharashtra Caste Certificate Act, 2000 states that a caste certificate issued by any person, officer, or authority other than the competent authority shall be invalid. The caste certificate issued by the competent authority shall be valid only subject to the verification and grant of validity certificate by the Scrutiny Committee.
64.Thus, from this provision, it is clear that the certificates issued by any person, officer or authority shall be invalid. Only the certificate issued by the competent authority shall be treated as valid. Therefore, all the certificates issued by the authorities other than the competent authority shall be invalid. This clearly shows that SC/ST candidates will have to produce certificates issued by the competent authority under the Maharashtra Caste Certificate Act. Therefore, while giving promotions, provisions of Maharashtra Caste Certificate will have to be followed. So far as applicability of the Act to the Central Government servant is concerned, Bombay High Court in the case of Adivasi Samaj Kruti Samiti and others versus Union of India through the Secretary and others, Writ Petition No. 7036/2011 dated 23rd October, 2013 has held that Sub-section (3) is applicable even to the Union of India. In view of Sub-section (3) of Section 6, the appointing authority of the Central Government is under an obligation to make an application in appropriate form to the Scrutiny Committees for verification of the caste certificate of the person who is selected for appointment. Thus, the appointing authority of Union of India will have to follow the mandate under Sub-section (3) of Section 6. These observations make it amply clear that the Maharashtra Caste Certificate Act applies to Central Government also. We (Justice M.G. Sewlikar, Member (J) and Mr. Rajinder Kashyap, Member (A)) had an occasion to decide this issue in the case of Vinod S/o Damodhar Kumbhare and Others versus Union of India and others in OA No. 258/2019 dated 6th March, 2024 relying on the judgment of Bombay High Court in the case of Arun Shankar Limje vs The Union of India and Others dated 13th March, 2020 in Writ Petition No. 9885 of 2019, it was held thus:-
‗23. Another judgment is of the Bombay High Court in the case of Arun Shankar Limje vs The Union of India and Others dated 13th March, 2020 in Writ Petition No. 9885 of 2019 in which the Bombay High Court relying on the observations made by the Supreme Court in the case of Jagdish Balaram Bahira (supra) held that the Act is applicable to the public sector undertakings. The relevant observations are contained in para 14:-
―The petitioners have garnered the benefits of reservation at the time of appointment. The caste certificates obtained by them is required to be verified and examined by the Scrutiny Committee. The veracity of the claim of the petitioners belonging to the reserved category is required to be tested. The petitioners are bound by the State enactment in view of the fact that public sector undertakings are also within the ambit and purview of the Maharashtra Act No. XXIII of 2001. The Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Chairman and Managing Director, Food Corporation of India and others Vs. Jagdish Balaram and others (supra) has observed that service under the Union and State or for that matter under the instrumentalities of the State subserves the public purpose.‖‘
65.These observations of Bombay High Court in the case of Arun Shankar Limje (supra) clearly indicate that the Maharashtra Act is applicable to the Central Government employees.‖
Further, learned counsel for the applicant in MA submits that the Hon’ble Judicial Member in his order dated 26.06.2024 in O.A. No. 557/2023 opined that only the caste certificate issued by the competent authority under the Maharashtra Act No. XXIII of 2001 shall be valid subject to verification and the grant of a validity certificate by the Scrutiny Committee.
Learned counsel would further argue that the Hon’ble Administrative Member in his separate order dated 26.06.2024 expressed his divergent opinion in Para 51 to 57 about applicability of provision of the Maharashtra Act, 2000/2001 in the case of Caste Certificate possessed by the Central Government employee posted and working in Maharashtra including the employee working under the Respondent No. 4 of the OA, the relevant observations and findings recorded by Member (A) in para 54 and concluding para 57 reads as under:-
“54.I find force in the submissions of learned counsels for the respondents and the intervenors. This is more so in view of the fact that respondents are Union Government authorities. Under the Union Government, an employee can be appointed through open competition from any geographical territory. Therefore, the catchment area to recruit of an employee is wide and expansive. It is not only difficult but also impractical to verify the Caste Certificate of such employees who are not domicile of Maharashtra under Section 4(2) of the Maharashtra Caste Certificate Act, 2000 which states that a caste certificate issued by any person, officer or authority other than the competent authority shall be invalid. Further, what is the necessity of verifying a Caste Certificate of a Union Government employee whose Caste Certificate has already been verified by the appointing authority under the Maharashtra Caste Certificate Act, 2000. What will happen to the employees who come to Maharashtra on transfer and later on promoted in Maharashtra as their Caste Certificate would have been verified by the appointing authorities at the time of initial appointment at some other place outside Maharashtra. Further, what will happen to those employees who have been appointed prior to the enactment of the Maharashtra Caste Certificate Act, 2000 and OA.557/2023 their Caste Certificate was verified by the appointing authorities and they were appointed to the relevant post. Another important question arises as to how many times, the Caste Certificate is required to be verified. The Maharashtra Caste Certificate Act, 2000 is into operation for last over two decades but Government of India through DoPT is issuing instructions on the issue / verification of Caste Certificate of concerned employees.
55.xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
56.xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
57.In view of the judgments discussed supra, the Caste Certificates of employees of Central Government who are not domicile of Maharashtra or have been posted in Maharashtra on transfer/promotion and are now claiming the benefit of reservation or have joined service prior to the implementation of the Maharashtra Caste Certificate Act, 2000, need not be referred to Caste Scrutiny Committee as the lists prepared under Articles 341 and 342 of the Constitution containing the details of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe communities are State-specific and specific to area within the State.‖
Thus, the Hon’ble Member (A) has concluded that Caste Certificates of employees of Central Government who are not domicile of Maharashtra or have been posted in Maharashtra on transfer/promotion and are now claiming the benefit of reservation/promotion or have joined service prior to the implementation of the Maharashtra Caste Certificate Act, 2000, need not be referred to the Caste Scrutiny Committee as the lists prepared under Articles 341 and 342 of the Constitution containing the details of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe communities are State-specific and specific to area within the State.
Therefore, Mr. Pandit learned counsel for the applicants in MA submitted that owing to the contradictory observations contained in the said order, the respondent department is facing considerable uncertainty regarding the correct legal position to be followed while dealing with promotions and service matters involving employees belonging to reserved categories.
It is further contended that numerous representations have been received from affected employees and that several officials who have not obtained caste validity certificates are presently occupying positions in their respective cadres based on placements made prior to the year 2000. Therefore, an authoritative determination of the issue is necessary to avoid inconsistent implementation and future disputes. Therefore, the present reference has been rightly referred by the Hon’ble Chairman of this Tribunal under Section 26 of the Administrative Tribunal’s Act 1985.
On the other hand, on receipt of advance copy of the present MA, learned counsel Dr. Tushar Mandlekar for the opponent no. 1 to 56 (i.e. original applicants in OA) submits that the opinion expressed by Member (J) vide order dated 26.06.2024 in O.A. No. 557/2023 is in terms of the directions issued by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Arun Shankar Limje vs The Union of India and Others dated 13th March, 2020 in Writ Petition No. 9885 of 2019 and Adivasi Samaj Kruti Samiti and others versus Union of India through the Secretary and others, Writ Petition No. 7036/2011 dated 23rd October, 2013. Therefore, the said opinion as expressed by the Member (J) is required to be accepted.
Mr. Mohan Sudame with Advocate Shri. S J Kamle appearing for the opponent no. 57 to 64 in MA (i.e. original private respondent no. 6 to 13 in O.A. No. 557/2023) would argue that the present MA is not maintainable since the official respondents in O.A. No. 557/2023 have no locus to file an MA seeking reference under Section 26 of the AT Act since at relevant time, the Members have not referred the matter for decision by majority. Further, it is submitted that the Hon’ble Chairman had already exhausted his power by making reference to 3rd Member and now majority opinion is by two Members on record and one minority opinion is also on record. To make reference is purely an administrative function and once having made a reference, neither the bench of Hon’ble Tribunal of judicial side nor the Hon’ble Chairman or the Tribunal is left with any original or residuary power to make reference again.
Further, undisputedly, by majority opinion the O.A. No. 557/2023 is dismissed and the official respondents had admitted the said fact. It is stated that the observations of Hon’ble Members of Tribunal in their opinion are matter of record. However, fact remains that specific prayer was made in original application that caste certificate are to be verified by committee and the prayer no. 2 of OA No. 557/2023 was dismissed. Therefore, it is false to say that Member (J) in his order dated 26.06.2024 directed any review DPC on the basis of caste certificate verified by the Committee. Attempt of official respondents who once claimed before this Tribunal that certificate once verified at entry level need not be verified again at promotion. Therefore, the present reference filed by the official respondents is contrary to their earlier stand and amounts to blocking flow of justice to employees. Thus, the reference is required to be dismissed.
Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the pleadings available on record.
Before delving upon the above point of reference herein, at the cost of repetition, it is appropriate to quote the relevant paras of the Orders passed by the Hon’ble Members in OA No.557/2003.
The relevant paras of the Order of Hon’ble Member (J) dated 26.06.2024 passed in OA No.557/2003 reads as under:-
―62. Learned counsel for the applicants pointed out that Government of Maharashtra has passed the Maharashtra Act No. XXIII of 2001, The Maharashtra Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, Denotified Tribes (Vimukta Jatis), Nomadic Tribes, Other Backward Classes and Special Backward Category (Regulation of Issuance and Verification of) Caste Certificate Act, 2000 (Maharashtra Caste Certificate Act). He points out that Supreme Court in the case of Chairman and Managing Director FCI & Others versus Jagdish Balaram Bahira, (2017) 8 SCC 670 held that where a candidate has obtained an appointment to a post on the solemn basis that he or she belongs to a designated caste, tribe or class for whom the post is meant and it is found upon verification by the Scrutiny Committee that the claim is false, the services of such an individual cannot be protected by taking recourse to administrative circulars or resolutions. Protecting the services of a candidate who is found not to belong to the community or tribe for whom the reservation is intended substantially encroaches upon legal rights of genuine members of the reserved communities whose just entitlements are negated by the grant of a seat to an ineligible person. Learned counsel for the respondents and intervenors submitted that Maharashtra Caste Certificate Act is a State enactment and cannot be applied to Central Government employees.
63.We find no force in the submission of learned counsels for the respondents and the intervenors. Section 4(2) of the Maharashtra Caste Certificate Act, 2000 states that a caste certificate issued by any person, officer or authority other than the competent authority shall be invalid. The caste certificate issued by the competent authority shall be valid only subject to the verification and grant of validity certificate by the Scrutiny Committee.
64.Thus, from this provision, it is clear that the certificates issued by any person, officer or authority shall be invalid. Only the certificate issued by the competent authority shall be treated as valid. Therefore, all the certificates issued by the authorities other than the competent authority shall be invalid. This clearly shows that SC/ST candidates will have to produce certificates issued by the competent authority under the Maharashtra Caste Certificate Act. Therefore, while giving promotions, provisions of Maharashtra Caste Certificate will have to be followed. So far as applicability of the Act to the Central Government servant is concerned, Bombay High Court in the case of Adivasi Samaj Kruti Samiti and others versus Union of India through the Secretary and others, Writ Petition No. 7036/2021 dated 23rd October, 2013 has held that Sub-section (3) is applicable even to the Union of India. In view of Sub-section (3) of Section 6, the appointing authority of the Central Government is under an obligation to make an application in appropriate form to the Scrutiny Committees for verification of the caste certificate of the persons who is selected for appointment. Thus, the appointing authority of Union of India will have to follow the mandate under Sub-section (3) of Section 6. These observations make it amply clear that the Maharashtra Caste Certificate Act applies to Central Government also. We (Justice M.G. Sewlikar, Member (J) and Mr. Rajinder Kashyap, Member (A)) had an occasion to decide this issue in the case of Vinod S/o Damodhar Kumbhare and Others versus Union of India and others in OA No. 258/2019 dated 6th March, 2024 relying on the judgment of Bombay High Court in the case of Arun Shankar Limje vs The Union of India and Others dated 13th March, 2020 in Writ Petition No. 9885 of 2019, it was held thus:-
―23. Another judgment is of the Bombay High Court in the case of Arun Shankar Limje vs The Union of India and Others dated 13th March, 2020 in Writ Petition No. 9885 of 2019 in which the Bombay High Court relying on the observations made by the Supreme Court in the case of Jagdish Balaram Bahira (supra) held that the Act is applicable to the public sector undertakings. The relevant observations are contained in para 14:-
'The petitioners have garnered the benefits of reservation at the time of appointment. The caste certificates obtained by them is required to be verified and examined by the Scrutiny Committee. The veracity of the claim of the petitioners belonging to the reserved category is required to be tested. The petitioners are bound by the State enactment in view of the fact that public sector undertakings are also within the ambit and purview of the Maharashtra Act No. XXIII of 2001. The Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Chairman and Managing Director, Food Corporation of India and others Vs. Jagdish Balaram and others (supra) has observed that service under the Union and State or for that matter under the instrumentalities of the State subserves the public purpose.'
65.These observations of Bombay High Court in the case of Arun Shankar Limje (supra) clearly indicate that the Maharashtra Act is applicable to the Central Government employees‖.
At the same time, the Hon’ble Administrative Member in OA No.557/2023 in his separate order dated 26.06.2024 (Annexure R-3) recorded as under:-
39.Learned counsel for the applicants pointed out that Government of Maharashtra has passed the Maharashtra Act No. XXIII of 2001, The Maharashtra Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, Denotified Tribes (Vimukta Jatis), Nomadic Tribes, Other Backward Classes and Special Backward Category (Regulation of Issuance and Verification of) Caste Certificate Act, 2000 (Maharashtra Caste Certificate Act). He points out that Supreme Court in the case of Chairman and Managing Director FCI & Others versus Jagdish Balaram Bahira, 2017 8 SCC 617 held that where a candidate has obtained an appointment to a post on the solemn basis that he or she belongs to a designated caste, tribe or class for whom the post is meant and it is found upon verification by the Scrutiny Committee that the claim is false, the services of such an individual cannot be protected by taking recourse to administrative circulars or resolutions. Protecting the services of candidate who is found not to belong to the community or tribe for whom the reservation is intended substantially encroaches upon legal rights of genuine members of the reserved communities whose just entitlements are negated by the grant of a seat to an ineligible person. Learned counsel for the respondents and intervenors submitted that Maharashtra Caste Certificate Act is a State enactment and cannot be applied to Central Government employees.
40.There are no two opinions that the Caste Certificates issued by any person, officer or authority, other than the competent authority shall be invalid. Only the certificate issued by the competent authority shall be treated as valid. Therefore, all the certificates issued by the authorities other than the competent authority shall be invalid. So far as the applicability of the Act to the Central Government servant is concerned, Bombay High Court in the case of Adivasi Samaj Kruti Samiti and others versus Union of India through the Secretary and others, Writ Petition No. 7036/2021 dated 23rd October, 2013 has held that Sub-section 3 is applicable even to the Union of India. In view of Sub-section 3 of Section 6, the appointing authority of the Central Government is under an obligation to make an application in appropriate form to the Scrutiny Committees for verification of the caste certificate of the persons who is selected for appointment. Thus, the appointing authority of Union of India will have to follow the mandate under Sub-section 3 of Section 6. These observations make it amply clear that the Maharashtra Caste Certificate Act applies to Central Government also. A Division Bench of this Tribunal consisting of Shri Justice M.G. Sewlikar, Member (J) and Shri Rajinder Kashyap, Member (A) had an occasion to decide this issue in the case of Vinod S/o Damodhar Kumbhare and Others versus Union of India and others in OA No. 258/2019 dated 6th March, 2024 relying on the case of Judgment of Bombay High Court in the case of Arun Shankar Limje vs The Union of India and Others dated 13th March, 2020 in Writ Petition No. 9885 of 2019, it was held thus:-
―23. Another judgement is of the Bombay High Court in the Case of Arun Shankar Limje vs The Union of India And Others dated 13th March, 2020 in Writ Petition No. 9885 of 2019 in which the Bombay High Court relying on the observations made by the Supreme Court in the case of Jagdish Balaram Bahira (supra) held that the Act is applicable to the public sector undertakings. The relevant observations are contained in para 14: -
"The petitioners have garnered the benefits of reservation at the time of appointment. The caste certificates obtained by them is required to be verified and examined by the scrutiny committee. The veracity of the claim of the petitioners belonging to the reserved category is required to be tested. The petitioners are bound by the State enactment in view of the fact that public sector undertakings are also within the ambit and purview of the Maharashtra Act No. XXIII of 2001. The Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Chairman and Managing Director, Food Corporation of India and others Vs. Jagdish Balaram and others (supra) has observed that service under the Union and State or for that matter under the instrumentalities of the State subserves the public purpose."
41.The observations of Bombay High Court in the case of Arun Shankar Limje (supra) indicate that the Maharashtra Act is applicable to the Central Government employees. In the Review Application (Civil) No. 13176 of 2020 in WP No. 14678 of 2019 in the case of (supra), the Hon‘ble High Court of Judicature at Bombay at Aurangabad held that the issue involved was that under the relevant policy it was decided by the respondents that the employees from Halba Koshti/Koshit/Halba communities will be arrayed in the general category and action in their case will be taken as per the said DoPT O.M. The issue in the Writ Petitions was whether the petitioners appointed from the reserved category are required to submit the validity certificates and/or are exempted from submitting the validity certificates. This Court negatived the contention of the petitioners holding that the petitioners are required to submit the validity certificates. The judgment under review was not called upon to deal with other policy decisions of the respondents. If the respondents have taken other policy decisions, it is for the respondents and the petitioners to abide by the policy decisions as may be prevailing, as those policy decisions were not the subject matter of consideration before this Court.
42.Learned counsel for the applicants submitted that in the case of Shama Anant Vakil (supra), the respondents implemented the directions of this Tribunal. Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that these findings have been rendered prima facie by the Bombay High Court in Writ Petition No. 2002/2020 dated 4th March, 2021. Respondents by clause 3(d) have already instructed the working committee that the reserved category officials who have not submitted caste validity certificate as mandated by Maharashtra Caste Certificate Act, 2001 will not be considered for promotion from their current designation keeping in view the matter of the Chief Regional Officer, Oriental Insurance Company Limited versus Pradip and Another, (2020) 11 SCC 144 in C.A. No. 742 of 2020. Therefore, no directions in this regard need to be given.
43.In the case of Marri Chandra Rao Vs. Dean Seth G.S. Medical College and Ors., decided on 02/05/1990 [1990 SCC (3) 130] on the subject whether one who is recognised as Scheduled Tribe in the State of origin and birth continues to have the benefits or privileges or rights in the State of Migration? ―for the purposes of this Constitution‖. Admission to Professional in Maharashtra State to the Applicant belonging to Gouda Community Scheduled Tribe in Andhra Pradesh—Gouda Community not Scheduled Tribe in Maharashtra—Applicant not entitled to claim seat on the basis of reservation.
44.It is a well-known fact that a Scheduled Caste in a particular State may not be a Scheduled Caste in another State. The list of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe communities notified under Articles 341 and Article 342 deal with appropriate to go through the constitutional provisions in this regard:-
341.Scheduled Castes.—(1) The President may with respect to any State or Union Territory, and where it is a State after consultation with the Governor thereof, by public notification, specify the castes, races or tribes or parts of or groups within castes, races or tribes which shall for the purposes of this Constitution be deemed to be Scheduled Castes in relation to that State or Union Territory, as the case may be.
(2)Parliament may by law include in or exclude from the list of Scheduled Castes specified in a notification issued under clause (1) any caste, race or tribe or part of or group within any caste, race or tribe, but save as aforesaid a notification issued under the said clause shall not be varied by any subsequent notification.
342.Scheduled Tribes.—(1) The President may with respect to any State or Union Territory, and where it is a State, after consultation with the Governor thereof, by public notification, specify the tribes or tribal communities or parts of or groups within tribes or tribal communities which shall for the purposes of this Constitution be deemed to be Scheduled Tribes in relation to that State or Union Territory, as the case may be.
(2)Parliament may by law include in or exclude from the list of Scheduled Tribes specified in a notification issued under clause (1) any tribe or tribal community or part of or group within any tribe or tribal community, but save as aforesaid a notification issued under the said clause shall not be varied by any subsequent notification."
45.It is seen from the above lists that a person may be Scheduled Caste in a State or only in a few Districts of a State or may not be included in the above lists at all. If we take an example of a Dhobi Sub Caste, it is notified in the Constitution (Scheduled Caste) (Union Territories) Order, 1951 as Scheduled Caste in Delhi, whereas, in the State of Madhya Pradesh, they are Scheduled Caste only in Bhopal, Raisen and Sehore districts; in the States of Rajasthan and Uttar Pradesh, the said Dhobi Caste is categorized as Scheduled Caste, while in the States of Gujarat, Punjab and Maharashtra, it is not mentioned in the list of communities mentioned in the list of Scheduled Castes. Further details could be seen in Chapter-2 of the List of Scheduled Castes, The Constitution (Scheduled Castes) Order dated 1950 C.O. 19, published with the Ministry of Law Notification No. S.R.O. 385, dated 10th August, 1950, Gazette of India, Extraordinary, 1950, Part-II, Section 3, page 163.
46.Therefore, an employee who has been appointed in the Central Government from a State where he is categorized as a Scheduled Caste / Scheduled Tribe candidate on the valid Caste Certificate which has been duly verified by the appointing authority at the time of his initial appointment, the said employee subsequently moves to a State on promotion / transfer and in the said State his Caste is not listed as Scheduled Caste / Scheduled Tribe, as a logical corollary the validity of his Caste Certificate produced by him and verified by the authorities at the time of his initial appointment needs to remain valid in the employment of the Union Government. In a State where his Caste is not listed as Scheduled Caste / Scheduled Tribe and such employee becomes eligible for consideration of promotion, the authorities will not be able to verify even the valid Caste Certificate of such employees and the said employee will not be able to produce relevant records for his Caste Validation Certificate as per the requirement of that State in which he is working as a Union Government Employee.
47.In the case of Scheduled Tribe persons, the Supreme Court has clarified the position w.r.t. Scheduled Tribes and the ambit of benefits to which one is entitled to being a Scheduled Tribe in the case of Marri Chandra Sekhar Rao Vs. Dean Seth G.S. Medical College and Ors. [1990 SCC (3) 130] in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 989 of 1989. The facts in that case are:-
―The petitioner, a citizen of India, was born on 6th October, 1969 in Tenali in the State of Andhra Pradesh. He belongs to the Gouda community also known as ‗Goudu‘, it is stated in the petition. This community is recognised as ‗Scheduled Tribe‘ in the Constitution (Scheduled Tribes) Order, 1950, as amended upto date. The father of the petitioner had been issued a Scheduled Tribe Certificate by the Tahsildar, Tenali, Andhra Pradesh on 3rd August, 1977. On the basis of the said certificate, the father of the petitioner was appointed in the Fertilizer Corporation of India, a public sector undertaking, on 17th October, 1977 in the Scheduled Tribes quota. On the 19th June, 1978, the petitioner‘s father joined the Rashtriya Chemicals and Fertilizers Ltd., a Government of India undertaking, under the quota reserved for Scheduled Tribes and he has been stationed in Bombay since then. The petitioner, therefore, came to live in Bombay, in the State of Maharashtra, since the age of nine years. The petitioner completed his secondary and higher education in Bombay. In March, 1989, the petitioner passed the 12th standard examination of the Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and Higher Secondary Examination, Bombay Divisional Board, securing 165 marks in the aggregate in Physics, Chemistry and Mathematics. For the academic year 1989-90, the petitioner submitted his application for three medical colleges in Bombay which are run by the Bombay Municipal Corporation (Respondent No. 2 herein) and for one medical college in Bombay run by the State of Maharashtra (Respondent No. 3). The total number of 846 seats in the three medical colleges run by the Municipal Corporation for the MBBS Course is 400 out of which 7%, i.e. 28 seats were reserved for Scheduled Tribes. The total number of seats in the medical college run by the State of Maharashtra is 200 out of which 7%, i.e. 14 seats are reserved for Scheduled Tribes. The petitioner sought and availed the benefit of the reservation in favour of the Scheduled Tribes. The petitioner was however not admitted to the MBBS course in either the medical colleges run by the Bombay Municipal Corporation or the State of Maharashtra, though indubitably Scheduled Tribes candidates who had secured lesser marks than him had been admitted. The undisputed reason for denial of admission to the petitioner was that the petitioner was not entitled to Scheduled Tribe status of his origin, in which this community is specified as a Scheduled Tribe in the Constitution (Scheduled Tribes) Order, 1950.
Treating the determination under Articles 341 and 342 to be valid for all over the country would be in negation to the very purpose and scheme and language of Article 341 read with Article 15(4). Nothing is surplus in a Constitution and no part should be made nugatory. Having regard, however, to the purpose and the scheme of the Constitution which would be just and fair to the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes not only of one State of origin but other states also where the Scheduled Castes or Tribes migrate in consonance with the rights of other castes or community, rights would be harmoniously balanced. Reservations should and must be adopted to advance the prospects of weaker sections of society, but while doing so care should be taken not to exclude the legitimate expectations of the other segments of the community. The petitioner is not entitled to be admitted to the Medical Colleges in Maharashtra on the basis that he belonged to the Scheduled Tribe in Andhra Pradesh. The question of petitioner‘s right to be admitted as being domicile does not fall for consideration.
There is a circular dated 22nd February, 1985 issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs which, inter alia, states:
―It is also clarified that a Scheduled Caste/Tribe person who has migrated from the State of origin to some other State for the purpose of seeking education, employment etc. will be deemed to be a Scheduled Caste/Tribe of the State of his origin and will be entitled to derive benefits from the State of origin and not from the State to which he has migrated. The admission forms issued by the Municipal Corporation as well as Government indicate the requirement of ‗domicile‘ of 15 years. The petitioner states that he has produced a domicile certificate indicating his stay in Maharashtra for over 10 years since 1978. This issue, however, is not before this Court in this writ petition. This issue had not been raised before this Court. In the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the State of Maharashtra, the objection was on the interpretation of Article 342 of the Constitution and there was no contention raised on the question of domicile. It is, therefore, necessary to refer to Article 342. Article 342 of the Constitution reads as follows:
‗342. Scheduled Tribes: (1) The President may with respect to any State or Union Territory, and where it is a State, after consultation with the Governor thereof, by public notification, specify the tribes or tribal communities or parts of or groups within tribes or tribal communities which shall for the purposes of this Constitution be deemed to be Scheduled Tribes in relation to that State or Union Territory, as the case may be.
(2)Parliament may by law include in or exclude from the list of Scheduled Tribes specified in a notification issued under clause (1) any tribe or tribal community or part of or group within any tribe or tribal community, but save as aforesaid a notification issued under the said clause shall not be varied by any subsequent notification.‘
In this connection, it may also be relevant to refer to Article 341 as it deals with the Scheduled Castes
‗341. Scheduled Castes: (1) The President may with respect to any State or Union Territory, and where it is a State after consultation with the Governor thereof, by public notification, specify the castes, races or tribes or parts of or groups within castes, races or tribes which shall for the purposes of this Constitution be deemed to be Scheduled Castes in relation to that State or Union Territory, as the case may be.
(2)Parliament may by law include in or exclude from the list of Scheduled Castes specified in a notification issued under clause (1) any caste, race or tribe or part of or group within any caste, race or tribe, but save as aforesaid a notification issued under the said clause shall not be varied by any subsequent notification.‘
The question, therefore, that arises in this case, is whether the petitioner can claim the benefit of being a Scheduled Tribe in the State of Maharashtra though he had, as he states, a Scheduled Tribe certificate in the State of Andhra Pradesh? Inasmuch as we are not concerned in this application with the controversy as to whether the petitioner correctly or appropriately belongs to the Gouda community or not, or whether the petitioner had a proper certificate, it is desirable to confine the controversy to the basic question, namely, whether one who is recognised as a Scheduled Tribe in the State of his origin and birth continues to have the benefits or privileges or rights in the State of migration or where he later goes.
In this connection, the provisions of Articles 341 and 342 of the Constitution have been noticed. These articles enjoin that the President after consultation with the Governor where the States are concerned, by public notification, may specify the tribes or tribal communities or parts of or groups of tribes or tribal communities, which shall be deemed to be Scheduled Tribes in relation to that State under Articles 341 and 342, Scheduled Tribes in relation to that State or Union Territory. The main question, therefore, is the specification by the President of the Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribes, as the case may be, for the State or Union Territory or part of the State. But this specification is ‗for the purposes of this Constitution‘. It is, therefore, necessary, as has been canvassed, to determine what the expression ‗in relation to that State‘ in conjunction with ‗for the purposes of this Constitution‘ seeks to convey.
It appears that Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes in some States had to suffer the social disadvantages and did not have the facilities for development and growth. It is, therefore, necessary in order to make them equal in those areas where they have so suffered and are in the state of underdevelopment to have reservations or protection in their favour so that they can compete on equal terms with the more advantageous or developed sections of the community. Extreme social and economic backwardness arising out of traditional practices of untouchability is normally considered as criterion for including a community in the list of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. The social conditions of a caste, however, vary from State to State and it will not be proper to generalise any caste or any tribe as a Scheduled Tribe or Scheduled Caste for the whole country. This, however, is a different problem whether a member of the Scheduled Caste in one part of the country who migrates to another State or any other Union Territory should continue to be treated as a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe in which he has migrated. That question has to be judged taking into consideration the interest and well-being of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes in the country as a whole.
It has, however, to be borne in mind that a man does not cease to belong to his caste by migration to a better or more socially free and liberal atmosphere. But if sufficiently long time is spent in a socially advanced area then the inhibitions and handicaps suffered by belonging to a socially disadvantageous community do not continue and the natural talent of a man or a woman or a boy or girl gets full scope to flourish. These, however, are problems of social adjustment i.e. how far protection has to be given to a certain segment of socially disadvantaged community and for how long to become equal with others is a matter of delicate social adjustment. These must be so balanced in the mosaic of the country‘s integrity that no section or community should cause detriment or discontentment to other community or part of community or section. Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes belonging to a particular area of the country must be given protection so long as and to the extent they are entitled in order to become equal with others. But equally those who go to other areas should also ensure that they make way for the disadvantaged and disabled of that part of the community who suffer from disabilities in those areas. In other words, Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, say of Andhra Pradesh, do require necessary protection as balanced between other communities. But equally the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, say of Maharashtra in the instant case, do require protection in the State of Maharashtra, which will have to be in balance to other communities. This must be the basic approach to the problem.
It may also be worthwhile to refer to the proceedings of the Constituent Assembly on the 17th September, 1949 dealing with Articles 303 and 304, which later on became Articles 341 and 342 respectively. Dr. B.R. Ambedkar moving the Resolution observed as follows:
―That after article 300, the following articles be inserted:
300A.(1) The President may, after consultation with the Governor or Ruler of a State, by public notification specify the castes, races or tribes or parts of or groups within castes, races or tribes, which shall for purposes of this Constitution be deemed to be Scheduled Castes in relation to the State.
(2)Parliament may by law include in or exclude from the list of Scheduled Castes specified in a notification issued by the President under clause (1) of this article any caste, race or tribe or part of or group within any caste, race or tribe, but save as aforesaid a notification issued under the said clause shall not be varied by any subsequent notification.
300B. (1) The President may after consultation with the Governor or Ruler of a State, by public notification specify the tribes or tribal communities or parts of or groups within tribes or tribal communities which shall for purposes of this Constitution be deemed to be Scheduled Tribes in relation to that State.
(2)Parliament may by law include in or exclude from the list of Scheduled Tribes specified in a notification issued by the President under clause (1) of this article any Tribe or Tribal community or part of or group within any Tribe or Tribal community but save as aforesaid a notification issued under the said clause shall not be varied by any subsequent notification.
The object of these two articles, as I stated, was to eliminate the necessity of burdening the Constitution with long lists of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. It is now proposed that the President, in consultation with the Governor or Ruler of a State should have the power to issue a general notification in the Gazette specifying all the Castes and tribes or groups thereof deemed to be Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes for the purposes of the privileges which have been defined for them in the Constitution.
The only limitation that has been imposed is this: that once a notification has been issued by the President, which, undoubtedly, he will be issuing in consultation with and on the advice of the Government of each State, thereafter, if any elimination was to be made from the List so notified or any addition was to be made, that must be made by Parliament and not by the President. The object is to eliminate any kind of political factors having a play in the matter of the disturbance in the Schedule so published by the President."
It is, however, necessary to give proper meaning to the expressions ‗for the purposes of this Constitution‘ and ‗in relation to that State‘ appearing in Articles 341 and 342 of the Constitution. The High Court of Gujarat has taken the view in two decisions, namely, Kum. Manju Singh v. The Dean, B.J. Medical College, AIR 1986 Gujarat 175 and Ghanshyam Kisan Borikar v. L.D. Engineering College, AIR 1987 Gujarat 83, to which our attention was drawn, that the phrase ‗for the purposes of this Constitution‘ cannot be and should not be made subservient to the phrase ‗in relation to that State‘ and therefore, it was held in those two decisions that in consequence the classification made by one State placing a particular caste or tribe in the category of Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes would entitle a member of that caste or tribe to all the benefits, privileges and protections under the Constitution of India. A similar view has been taken by the Karnataka High Court in the case of M. Muni Reddy v. Karnataka Public Service Commission & Ors., [1981] Lab. I.C. 1345. On the other hand, the Orissa High Court in the case of K. Appa Rao v. Director of Posts & Telegraphs, Orissa & Ors., AIR 1969 Orissa 220 and the Full Bench of the Bombay High Court in M.S. Malathi v. The Commissioner, Nagpur Division & Ors., AIR 1989 Bombay 138 have taken the view that in view of the expression ‗in relation to that State‘ occurring in Articles 341 and 342, the benefit of the status of Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes would be available only in the State in respect of which the caste or tribe is so specified. A similar view has been taken by the Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of V.B. Singh v. State of Punjab, ILR 1976(1) Punjab & Haryana. It is trite knowledge that the statutory and constitutional provisions should be interpreted broadly and harmoniously. It is a trite saying that where there is conflict between two provisions, these should be so interpreted as to give effect to both. Nothing is surplus in a Constitution and no part should be made nugatory. This is well-settled. See the observations of this Court in Sri Venkataramana Devara & Ors. v. State of Mysore & Ors., [1958] SCR 895 at 918, where Venkatarama Ayyar, J. reiterated that the rule of construction is well-settled and where there are in an enactment two provisions which cannot be reconciled with each other, these should be so interpreted that, if possible, effect could be given to both. It, however, appears to us that the expression ‗for the purposes of this Constitution‘ in Articles 341 as well as in Article 342 do imply that the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes so specified would be entitled to enjoy all the constitutional rights that are enjoyable by all the citizens as such. Constitutional right, e.g., it has been argued that right to migration or right to move from one part to another is a right given to all—to Scheduled Castes or Tribes and to non-Scheduled Castes or Tribes. But when a Scheduled Caste or Tribe migrates, there is no inhibition in migrating but when he migrates, he does not and cannot carry any special rights or privileges attributed to him or granted to him in the original State specified for that State or area or part thereof. If that right is not given in the migrated State it does not interfere with his constitutional right of equality or of migration or of carrying on his trade, business or profession. Neither Article 14, 16, 19 nor Article 21 is denuded by migration but he must enjoy those rights in accordance with the law if they are otherwise followed in the place where he migrates. There should be harmonious construction, harmonious in the sense that both parts or all parts of a constitutional provision should be so read that one part does not become nugatory to the other or denuded to the other but all parts must be read in the context in which these are used. It was contended that the only way in which the fundamental rights of the petitioner under Articles 14, 19(1)(d), 19(1)(e) and 19(1)(g) could be given effect to is by construing Article 342 in a manner by which a member of a Scheduled Tribe gets the benefit of that status for the purposes of the Constitution throughout the territory of India. It was submitted that the words ―for the purposes of this Constitution‖ must be given full effect. There is no dispute about that. The words ―for the purposes of this Constitution‖ must mean that a Scheduled Caste so designated must have rights under Articles 14, 19(1)(d), 19(1)(e) and 19(1)(g) inasmuch as these are applicable to him in his area where he migrates or where he goes. The expression ―in relation to that State‖ would become nugatory if in all States the special privileges or the rights granted to Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes are carried forward. It will also be inconsistent with the whole purpose of the scheme of reservation. In Andhra Pradesh, a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe may require protection because a boy or a child who grows in that area is inhibited or is at disadvantage. In Maharashtra that caste or that tribe may not be so inhibited but other castes or tribes might be. If a boy or a child goes to that atmosphere of Maharashtra as a young boy or a child and goes in a completely different atmosphere of Maharashtra where this inhibition or this disadvantage is not there, then he cannot be said to have that reservation which will denude the children or the people of Maharashtra belonging to any segment of that State who may still require that protection. After all, it has to be borne in mind that the protection is necessary for the disadvantaged castes or tribes of Maharashtra as well as disadvantaged castes or tribes of Andhra Pradesh. Thus, balancing must be done as between those who need protection and those who need no protection, i.e., who belong to advantaged castes or tribes and who do not. Treating the determination under Articles 341 and 342 of the Constitution to be valid all over the country would be in negation of the very purpose and scheme and language of Articles 341 read with Article 15(4) of the Constitution. Our attention was drawn to certain observations in Elizabeth Warburton v. James Loveland, [1832] House of Lords 499. It is true that all provisions should be read harmoniously. It is also true that no provision should be so read as to make other provisions nugatory or restricted. But having regard to the purpose, it appears to us that harmonious construction enjoins that we should give to each expression—‗in relation to that State‘ or ‗for the purposes of this Constitution‘—its full meaning and give them full effect. This must be so construed that one must not negate the other. The construction that reservation made in respect of the Scheduled Caste or Tribe of that State is so determined to be entitled to all the privileges and rights under the Constitution in that State would be the most correct way of reading, consistent with the language, purpose and scheme of the Constitution. Otherwise, one has to bear in mind that if reservations to those who are treated as Scheduled Caste or Tribe in Andhra Pradesh are also given to a boy or a girl who migrates and gets educated in the State of Maharashtra or other States where that caste or tribe is not treated as Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe, then either reservation will have the effect of depriving the percentage to the members of that caste or tribe in Maharashtra who would be entitled to protection or it would denude the other non-Scheduled Castes or non-Scheduled Tribes in Maharashtra to the proportion that they are entitled to. This cannot be a logical or correct result designed by the Constitution. In the case of Pradeep Jain v. Union of India (supra), this Court held that a wholesale reservation of seats on the basis of residence requirement within the State or institutional preference would be violative of Article 14. Equally it is argued that a construction of Article 342 which completely prevents a Scheduled Tribe candidate of Andhra Pradesh from getting a medical seat in Maharashtra under the Scheduled Tribe quota would be violative of Article 14. It would not be so, because a Scheduled Tribe candidate of Andhra Pradesh will be entitled to all the benefits in medical colleges of the State of Maharashtra. It was argued that under Articles 19(1)(d), (e) and (g), if a parent wishes to keep his child with him, the opposite view would necessarily mean that he must remain confined to his home State, disregarding all suitable job opportunities commensurate with his education, experience and talent. We are unable to accept this submission. These are not additional protections, i.e., he can only enjoy the protection of the Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe but he cannot enjoy the protection of non-Scheduled Tribes or Castes in addition to the existing fundamental rights. It is further submitted that the view canvassed on behalf of the petitioner finds support in Durga Das Basu‘s Commentary on the Constitution of India, 6th Edition, Vol. IV, page 149, where it is stated as follows:
‗In relation to that State‘. A caste which is specified as a Scheduled Caste in a particular State may not deserve to be so specified in another State. But when a caste is specified in the President‘s Order in relation to a particular State, it does not mean that a person belonging to that caste should be considered to be a member of a Scheduled Caste only for that State alone. Once a caste is included in the Scheduled Castes Order, that would be for purposes of the Constitution.‖
Court in Pradeep Jain’s case (supra) that the residence requirement of 15 years in order to be eligible for admission to medical colleges in Maharashtra is wholly arbitrary, unreasonable and hence violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. Our attention was drawn to the decisions of this Court in D.P. Joshi v. The State of Madhya Bharat & Anr., [1955] 1 SCR 1215 and Minor P. Rajendran v. State of Madras & Ors., [1968] 2 SCR 786 on the question of residence qualification. In the view we have taken and in the context of the controversy in the instant case, we are of the opinion that this question will not be relevant.
In this connection, it may not be inappropriate to refer to the views of Dr. B.R. Ambedkar as to the prospects of the problem that might arise, who stated in the Constituent Assembly Debates in reply to the question which was raised by Mr. Jai Pal Singh (―Safeguards for Scheduled Castes and Tribes – Founding Fathers‘ View‖ by A.S. Saksena, at p. 60) which are to the following effect:
―He asked me another question and it was this. Supposing a member of a Scheduled Tribe living in a tribal area migrates to another part of the territory of India, which is outside both the Scheduled Area and the Tribal Area, will he be able to claim from the local Government, within whose jurisdiction he may be residing, the same privileges which he would be entitled to when he is residing within the Scheduled Area or within the Tribal Area? It is a difficult question for me to answer. If that matter is agitated in quarters where a decision on a matter like this would lie, we would certainly be able to give some answer to the question in the form of some clause in this Constitution. But, so far as the present Constitution stands, a member of a Scheduled Tribe going outside the Scheduled Area or Tribal Area would certainly not be entitled to carry with him the privileges that he is entitled to when he is residing in a Scheduled Area or a Tribal Area. So far as I can see, it will be practically impossible to enforce the provisions that apply to Tribal Areas or Scheduled Areas, in areas other than those which are covered by them.....‖
In that view of the matter, we are of the opinion that the petitioner is not entitled to be admitted to the medical college on the basis of Scheduled Tribe Certificate in Maharashtra. In the view we have taken, the question of petitioner‘s right to be admitted as being domicile does not fall for consideration.
We, therefore, direct that the petitioner is not entitled to be admitted to the Medical College on the basis that he belonged to the Scheduled Tribe in Andhra Pradesh but his continuance in the College will depend upon the consideration indicated hereinbefore. The writ petition is thus disposed of. There will be no order as to costs.
48.In SLP (C) No. 1663 of 2019, Chandigarh Housing Board v. Tarsem Lal, the Hon‘ble Supreme Court in its judgment dated 07.02.2024 held as follows:
―31. In the instant case, merely because the appellant herein had issued a Notification calling for applications from both Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes did not confer any benefit by that Notification on the respondent herein when there is no Presidential Order at all under Article 342 of the Constitution of India issued with regard to Scheduled Tribes insofar as Union Territory of Chandigarh is concerned. The said basic foundational fact goes against the respondent herein and the invitation given by the appellant/Housing Board to Scheduled Tribes was in fact contrary to the said basic tenets as well as the prevalent law and by that reason, the respondent herein cannot also seek any estoppel as against the appellant herein.
32.The High Court lost sight of the aforesaid facts and instead placed reliance on Exhibit P-8 letter dated 21.09.1983 and Exhibit D-3 letter dated 21.05.1985 to hold that there was reservation made for Scheduled Tribe applicants also for allotment of dwelling units/flats. In fact, in the letter dated 21.09.1983 (Exhibit P-8) it has been expressly noted that there are no Scheduled Tribes notified for Union Territory of Chandigarh but there are general instructions on reservation for Scheduled Tribes enunciated in Appendix-3 Note 2 of the Brochure on Reservation of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. The said Brochure cannot override Article 342 of the Constitution of India which empowers the President of India to notify the Scheduled Tribes either for a State or for a Union Territory.
33.In the circumstances, we find that the impugned judgment of the High Court affirming the judgment of the First Appellate Court, which in turn affirms the judgment of the Trial Court, are all liable to be set aside and are hence set aside.
49.The above is the case of exclusive jurisdiction and since one of the two laws must be void, the question of inconsistency between the two has no application. Only the one law will survive and other law will not survive. In contrast, where the legislation passed by the Union and the State is on its subject matter included in the Concurrent List, then the matter cannot be determined by applying the test of ultra vires because the hypothesis is that both the laws are constitutionally valid. In such a case, the test to be adopted will be that of repugnancy under Article 254(2). It follows that it is only where the legislation is on a matter in the Concurrent List that it would be relevant to apply the test of repugnancy. Notwithstanding the contrary view expressed by some experts, this is the correct position. Such a view was expressed by Doctor D. Basu in his commentary on the Constitution of India (1950 page 564) and it is this view that has been upheld by the Supreme Court in the undermentioned decisions:-
1.Deep Chand v. State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1959 SC 648 : (1959) Supp 2 SCR 8 : 1959 SCA 377 : 1959 SCJ 1069 : ILR (1959) 1 All 293.
2.Prem Nath Kaul v. State of Jammu & Kashmir, AIR 1959 SC 749 : (1959) Supp 2 SCR 270 : (1959) 2 SCA 65 : 1959 SCJ 797.
3.Zaverbhai Amaidas v. State of Bombay, AIR 1954 SC 752 : (1955) 1 SCR 799.
4.Bar Council of Uttar Pradesh v. State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1973 SC 231 (238) : (1973) 1 SCC 261.
5.T. Barai v. Henry Ah Hoe, AIR 1983 SC 150 : (1983) 1 SCC 177 : 1983 Cri LJ 164, paragraph 15.
6.Hoechst Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v. State of Bihar, AIR 1983 SC 1019 : (1983) 4 SCC 45 : 1983 UJ (SC) 617 : 1983 SCC (Tax) 248 : (1983) 8 STL (SC) 1, paragraphs 68, 69 and 76.
7.ITC Ltd. v. State of Karnataka, (1985) Supp SCC 476, paragraph 29.
8.Lingappa Pochanna Appelwar v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1985 SC 389 : (1985) 1 SCC 479 : (1985) 87 Bom LR 65 : 1985 GOC (SC) 41 : (1985) 2 SCR 224, paragraph 26.
50.In the case of L. Chandra Kumar Vs. Union of India and Others decided on 18.03.1997, reported in AIR 1997 SC 1125, it was held that:-
―100. ...... The Tribunals will, nevertheless, continue to act like Courts of first instance in respect of the areas of law for which they have been constituted. It will not, therefore, be open for litigants to directly approach the High Courts even in cases where they question the vires of statutory legislations (except where the legislation which creates the particular Tribunal is challenged) by overlooking the jurisdiction of the concerned Tribunal. Section 5(6) of the Act is valid and constitutional and is to be interpreted in the manner we have indicated.‖
51.After enactment and implementation of the Maharashtra Caste Certificate Act, 2000, DoPT has repeatedly issued instructions on timely verification of caste / community certificates. The details of communication issued by the DoPT from the year 2007 onwards are given in the table below:-
Sl. No. Letter No. Date Subject Addressed to Whom 1 36011/3/2005-Estt. (Res.) 20.03.2007 Verification of claims of candidates belonging to Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes The Chief Secretaries of all States/Union Territories Sl. No. Letter No. Date Subject Addressed to Whom 2 36011/1/2012-Estt. (Res.) 11.04.2012 Verification of caste certificates by District Authorities The Chief Secretaries of all States/Union Territories 3 36011/1/2012-Estt. (Res.) 08.10.2015 Reiteration of instructions on verification of claims of candidates belonging to Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes for the purpose of appointment to posts/services The Secretaries of all Ministries in Government of India and other Central Government Offices like UPSC, Railway Board, SSC, National Commission for SCs, National Commission for STs, National Commission for Backward Classes, CAG, ISTM, etc. 4 36011/1/2012-Estt. (Res.) 14.03.2016 Reiteration of the instructions on streamlining the procedure for verification of claims of candidates belonging to Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes for the purpose of appointment to posts/services The Chief Secretaries of all States/UTs 5 36011/4/2017-Estt. (Res-I) 19.03.2021 Timely verification of Caste/Community Certificates The Chief Secretaries of all States/Union Territories 52.It is stated that in the case of Shama Anant Vakil in OA No. 2181/2013 (supra), this Tribunal had directed the respondents to review all the promotions from granted based on reservations and by resorting to the roaster system from 15th November, 1997 up to the date and carrying out the necessary amendments within a period of four months and grant seniority and pay fixation in accordance with the rules. This judgment in the case of Shama Anant Vakil (supra) was challenged before the Bombay High Court by preferring Writ Petition No. 2002/2020, Shailesh Pundlik Meshram versus Union of India and Others, in which the Bombay High Court allowed the writ petition and permitted the petitioners to file O.A. before this Tribunal questioning their individual reversions and directed that the Central Administrative Tribunal shall consider the observations in its order dated 30th November, 2018 as prima facie findings. Accordingly, the petitioners in Writ Petition No. 2002/2020 and other writ petitions preferred OA Nos. 2103, 2104, 2112, 2113, 2114, 2115, 2116, 2117, 2145 of 2020; 2067, 2069, 2078, 2070, 2088, 729 of 2021; 88 to 108 and 197 to 199 of 2022 before this Tribunal, in which this Tribunal quashed and set aside the impugned orders of reversion of the applicants and directed the respondents to consider the cases of those applicants who had been promoted on their own merit and had been reverted against proper roster positions as per merit irrespective of the category of the vacancy. This Tribunal issued the following directions:-
―We quash and set aside the impugned orders of reversion of the applicants. We further direct the respondents to consider the case of those applicants, who had been promoted on own merit and have been reverted against proper roster position as per merit irrespective of the category of the vacancy. Other applicants who were promoted on reservation basis and were reverted due to non-availability of vacant posts shall not be reverted; rather, the department shall adjust such applicants against the vacancy of their category as and when the same arises. Till then they shall be continued on supernumerary posts. However, it is made clear that seniority of the applicants who were promoted against reserved category posts and are in excess today shall be counted from their actual adjustment in the cadre as per the running of post-based roster. Let this exercise be completed within a period of 10 weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of this order. Applicants will also be entitled to difference of arrears of pay with effect from 22.04.2020, although without interest.‖
53.In this view of the matter, the applicants herein preferred Writ Petition before the High Court of Bombay in which stay was specifically refused observing that there is no stay. What the Tribunal has directed is that to consider the case of those applicants who have been promoted on own merit and have been reverted against proper roster position as per merit irrespective of the category of the vacancy. This exercise can be done only on collection of quantifiable data. Learned counsel for the respondents, Shri B. D. Pandit placed reliance on the case of Rajneesh Kumar Yadav & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Ors. in Writ Petition No. 1305/2023 in which the respondents are permitted to issue promotion order pursuant to the departmental promotion examination that has been conducted by them which have been directed to be treated as provisional subject to the outcome of litigation. He submitted that the respondents be also permitted to issue promotion orders which would be subject to the decision of the Supreme Court. In that case, the process for issuing of orders of promotion has been completed. This is not the factual situation here. In this view of the matter, this decision has no application to the case at hand.
54.I find force in the submissions of learned counsels for the respondents and the intervenors. This is more so in view of the fact that respondents are Union Government authorities. Under the Union Government, an employee can be appointed through open competition from any geographical territory. Therefore, the catchment area to recruit an employee is wide and expansive. It is not only difficult but also impractical to verify the Caste Certificate of such employees who are not domicile of Maharashtra under Section 4(2) of the Maharashtra Caste Certificate Act, 2000 which states that a caste certificate issued by any person, officer or authority other than the competent authority shall be invalid. Further, what is the necessity of verifying a Caste Certificate of a Union Government employee whose Caste Certificate has already been verified by the appointing authority under the Maharashtra Caste Certificate Act, 2000. What will happen to the employees who come to Maharashtra on transfer and later on promoted in Maharashtra as their Caste Certificate would have been verified by the appointing authorities at the time of initial appointment at some other place outside Maharashtra. Further, what will happen to those employees who have been appointed prior to the enactment of the Maharashtra Caste Certificate Act, 2000 and their Caste Certificate was verified by the appointing authorities and they were appointed to the relevant post. Another important question arises as to how many times, the Caste Certificate is required to be verified. The Maharashtra Caste Certificate Act, 2000 is into operation for last over two decades but Government of India through DoPT is issuing instructions on the issue/verification of Caste Certificate of concerned employees.
55.It may be relevant to point out that the scheme of distribution of legislative powers under the Indian Constitution—such distribution being a necessary component of a federal political structure—raises entrusting issues where coexisting Central or State laws in a particular area give rise to litigation. Such problem arises either because the Union or a State may illegally encroach upon the province of the other parallel legislature or it may arise because though there is no encroachment as such on each other‘s sphere yet, the two laws clash with each other. The two situations are strictly speaking different from each other and they may be judged by two different tests. Where the subject matter of the legislation in question falls within either the Union List or the State List, the question is to be decided with reference to legislative competence. One of the two laws must necessarily be void because, leaving aside the matters in the Concurrent List, the Indian Constitution confers exclusive jurisdiction upon Parliament for matters in the Union List and upon a State Legislature for the matters in the State List. The correct doctrine applicable is that of ultra vires.
56.It was submitted that the applicants have no cause of action as the respondents are only collecting data for the implementation of the order dated 28th January, 2022 of the Supreme Court. No order is yet passed by which applicants can be said to be aggrieved. In view of matter examined by me in aforementioned paragraphs, I am of the considered view that it would suffice the requirement of maintenance of quantifiable data if the post-based roster is prepared and maintained in the manner of filling up of the posts as prescribed by the Constitution Bench decision in R.K. Sabharwal v. State of Punjab (1995 (2) SCC 745), the data benchmark would be met as no further requirement is necessary after post based roster is maintained as laid down in para 121 of M. Nagaraj and Paras 17-18 of the Supreme Court in Jarnail Singh v. Lachhmi Narain Gupta (2022 (10) SCC 595). Further, ‗Cadre‘ has been held as the unit, therefore, a cadre‘s data is always in the possession of the Appointing Authority or the Cadre Controlling Authority. Therefore, there is no further requirement as the Appointing Authority has the requisite authority to apply the post-based roster and have the data on the adequacy of representation of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribe employees. Hence, I do not find any force in the arguments of applicants. The respondents can grant reservation in promotion if they are maintaining post based roster as stipulated in the Supreme Court judgments cited supra and based on such roster points.
57.In view of the judgments discussed supra, the Caste Certificates of employees of Central Government who are not domicile of Maharashtra or have been posted in Maharashtra on transfer/promotion and are now claiming the benefit of reservation or have joined service prior to the implementation of the Maharashtra Caste Certificate Act, 2000, need not be referred to Caste Scrutiny Committee as the lists prepared under Articles 341 and 342 of the Constitution containing the details of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe communities are State-specific and area-specific within the State.‖
Having regard to the above submissions of the parties and upon a comparative reading of the two opinions, it is evident that there is no divergence on the broad proposition that the Maharashtra Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, Denotified Tribes (Vimukta Jatis), Nomadic Tribes, Other Backward Classes and Special Backward Category (Regulation of Issuance and Verification of) Caste Certificate Act, 2000 is applicable to the Union of India in so far as Section 6 (3) casts an obligation upon appointing authorities situated within the State of Maharashtra to seek verification of caste certificates through the Scrutiny Committee.
However, it can be seen that the divergence arises on a narrower but crucial issue, namely, whether every Central Government employee claiming reservation benefits in promotion while posted and working in Maharashtra, including employees who were recruited outside Maharashtra and subsequently transferred from other States, or appointed prior to the enactment of the Maharashtra Act, must necessarily obtain a caste validity certificate from the Maharashtra Scrutiny Committee before being considered for promotion.
After examining the statutory provisions, constitutional scheme, and judicial precedents referred to in both opinions, I find myself in agreement with the view expressed by the Hon’ble Administrative Member keeping in view the provisions contained in Articles 341 and 342 of the Constitution, as quoted above and the Constitution Bench judgment in Marri Chandra Shekhar Rao v. Dean, Seth G.S. Medical College (supra), authoritatively held that Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe status is State-specific. The Supreme Court categorically held that a person recognised as a Scheduled Tribe in one State cannot claim the same status and corresponding reservation benefits in another State merely by migration. The constitutional expression “in relation to that State” occurring in Articles 341 and 342 was interpreted to mean that the Presidential notification is confined to the concerned State. This principle has consistently been reiterated subsequently by the Hon’ble Supreme Court.
The opinion as expressed by the Hon’ble Administrative Member that a Central Government service is not State-based is acceptable for the reason that the recruitment to Central services is made from all parts of the country. An employee may be recruited in one State, transferred to another State, and promoted in a third State. Such employee carries with him the status validly recognised at the time of initial appointment. The question, therefore, is not whether the Maharashtra Act is applicable in general, but whether the Maharashtra Scrutiny Committee can insist upon verification of caste claims of employees whose caste status emanates from another State and whose appointments were validly made by Central authorities outside Maharashtra.
The decision of the Bombay High Court in Adivasi Samaj Kruti Samiti (supra) and the judgment in Arun Shankar Limje (supra) cannot be read as laying down that every Central Government employee posted in Maharashtra must invariably obtain a caste validity certificate from the Maharashtra Scrutiny Committee irrespective of the State of origin. Those decisions merely recognise the applicability of the Maharashtra Act in appropriate cases. They do not deal with the peculiar category of Central Government employees recruited on an all-India basis whose caste status originates from another State (other than Maharashtra State) and whose certificates had already been accepted and verified by competent authorities at the time of appointment by the concerned Competent Authority of the official respondents.
The judgment of the Supreme Court in Chairman and Managing Director, FCI v. Jagdish Balaram Bahira, reported in (2017) 8 SCC 670, also does not conclude the controversy. The said judgment was rendered in the context of false caste claims and invalidation of caste certificates by a competent Scrutiny Committee. The ratio therein is that a person whose caste claim is found false cannot retain the benefit of reservation. The case does not deal with the issue whether a Central Government employee possessing a valid caste certificate from his State of origin and whose appointment is not under challenge must again undergo verification before a Maharashtra Scrutiny Committee merely because he is posted in Maharashtra.
It is noticed that the Hon’ble Administrative Member has correctly relied upon the constitutional principle flowing from Marri Chandra Shekhar Rao (supra) and the recent judgment of the Supreme Court in Chandigarh Housing Board v. Tarsem Lal, SLP (C) No.1663 of 2019, decided on 07.02.2024. The Hon’ble Supreme Court reiterated that the existence and recognition of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes depend upon Presidential notifications issued for a particular State or Union Territory. Reservation benefits cannot be divorced from the constitutional framework under Articles 341 and 342.
A practical and constitutional difficulty also arises if the interpretation as provided by the official respondents as well expressed by the Hon’ble Judicial Member is accepted. A Central Government employee belonging to a Scheduled Tribe recognised in Andhra Pradesh but not recognised in Maharashtra may have validly secured appointment under the Scheduled Tribe quota through a Central recruitment process. Once posted in Maharashtra, the Maharashtra Scrutiny Committee would have no jurisdictional basis to evaluate his tribal status according to Maharashtra-specific ethnological criteria because the caste or tribe itself may not be recognised in Maharashtra. Such a requirement would create an anomalous situation whereby a constitutionally valid appointment made by the Union of India could be rendered vulnerable merely because of a subsequent transfer or promotion in another State. Further, neither the Maharashtra Act nor any DoP&T’s instruction expressly mandates repeated verification at every stage of service. The DoP&T communications referred to in paragraph 51 of the opinion of the Hon’ble Administrative Member primarily emphasize timely verification of caste certificates at the stage of recruitment and appointment. They do not prescribe repeated scrutiny whenever an employee is transferred from one State to another or considered for promotion.
The legislative competence aspect discussed by the Hon’ble Administrative Member also merits acceptance. Reservation in services under the Union is a matter falling within the domain of the Union. While the Maharashtra Act undoubtedly regulates issuance and verification of caste certificates within the State, its provisions cannot be interpreted in a manner that nullifies or overrides the constitutional status validly recognised by competent authorities in another State and acted upon by the Union Government at the time of appointment. Such an interpretation would create serious federal and constitutional difficulties.
It is also noteworthy that the Hon’ble Bombay High Court, while dealing with challenges arising from the implementation of the decision in Shama Anant Vakil (supra), treated its earlier observations only as prima facie findings and directed individual grievances to be adjudicated separately. Thus, no binding precedent has been shown which mandates universal re-verification by Maharashtra Scrutiny Committees of all Central Government employees posted in Maharashtra.
In view of the foregoing discussion, the point of reference is answered as follows:
The Maharashtra Caste Certificate Act, 2000 is applicable to the Union of India and its authorities functioning within the State of Maharashtra to the extent recognised by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court and the statutory scheme of the Act;
However, the Act cannot be interpreted to require every Central Government employee, irrespective of his State of origin, place of recruitment, date of appointment, or previous verification of caste status, to obtain a caste validity certificate from the Maharashtra Scrutiny Committee as a condition precedent for consideration for promotion;
In the case of Central Government employees recruited on an all-India basis, whose caste certificates were accepted and verified by the competent appointing authorities at the time of initial appointment and whose caste status pertains to another State, there is no legal requirement that such certificates must again be referred to or validated by the Maharashtra Scrutiny Committee solely because the employee is posted or promoted in Maharashtra; and
The maintenance of post-based roster and collection of quantifiable data for reservation in promotion, as mandated by the decisions of the Supreme Court in M. Nagaraj v. Union of India, (2006) 8 SCC 212, Jarnail Singh v. Lachhmi Narain Gupta, (2018) 10 SCC 396 and subsequent decisions, can be undertaken by the cadre controlling authority without insisting upon such repeated verification.
For the aforesaid reasons, I concur with the conclusions recorded by the Hon’ble Administrative Member in paragraphs 54 to 57 of his opinion as rendered in separate order dated 26.06.2024 in OA No.557/2023 and answer the reference accordingly.
Resultantly, the M.A. No. 1122/2025 in O.A. No. 557/2023 is disposed of in light of discussion made herein above.