Employment Termination and Caste Reservation: Supreme Court’s Ruling on Disputed Appointments

The Supreme Court of India recently addressed a case concerning the termination of employees due to issues related to caste-based reservations. The appellants, who were employees of the Food Corporation of India and the Reserve Bank of India, were facing dismissal based on their caste status. The judgment centered on whether their appointments should be protected and whether they were entitled to retain benefits acquired under the reserved category.

Background of the Case

The dispute began when the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Nagpur Bench, ruled that certain employees, who had initially availed themselves of caste-based reservations but later abandoned their caste claims, should be terminated from service. Additionally, the High Court ordered that any benefits granted to them based on their caste status after 28.11.2000 should be withdrawn and recovered.

The employees challenged this decision, arguing that their appointments had been protected under a previous High Court ruling in Writ Petition No. 5198/2009. That judgment had already clarified that their appointments could not be terminated but that they should be placed in the general category with no further benefits from the reserved quota.

Key Issues Raised

• Should the employees who initially availed of caste-based reservations but later withdrew their caste claims be allowed to continue in service?
• Were the employees entitled to retain benefits acquired under the Scheduled Tribe category after 28.11.2000?
• Was the High Court justified in directing the termination and recovery of benefits from these employees?
• Should a prior ruling protecting their appointments be upheld?

Arguments of the Petitioners (Appellants)

• The appellants argued that their appointments had already been protected by the High Court in its judgment dated 01.11.2012, which had not been overturned.
• They contended that the Food Corporation of India (FCI) and the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) could not now disregard the previous ruling and take away their jobs.
• The employees also pointed out that the Supreme Court had dismissed an appeal against the 2012 judgment, making it final and binding.
• They emphasized that while they had been moved to the general category, their employment should not be terminated, and they should not be forced to return any benefits earned before the cut-off date.

Arguments of the Respondents (FCI, RBI, and Others)

• The respondents maintained that the appellants were not originally eligible for employment under the reserved category and had, therefore, gained an undue advantage.
• They contended that allowing these employees to retain benefits meant for Scheduled Tribes would be unfair to genuine reserved category candidates.
• The High Court had correctly directed the termination of their services and the recovery of all benefits accrued under the ST quota after 28.11.2000.
• They relied on legal precedents where the Supreme Court had upheld the principle that employment obtained through an incorrect caste claim should be revoked.

Supreme Court’s Analysis

The Supreme Court examined the matter carefully and noted that the same issue had already been addressed in Writ Petition No. 5198/2009. The key points of the Court’s analysis were:

• The High Court’s earlier ruling had explicitly protected the appointments of the employees.
• The previous judgment had been challenged before the Supreme Court, which dismissed the appeal, making the ruling final.
• As per the 2012 judgment, the employees were only entitled to remain in service as general category employees without any further benefits from the reserved quota.
• The Supreme Court found that the High Court’s latest ruling contradicted its earlier decision, which had already settled the issue.

Final Judgment

The Supreme Court modified the High Court’s decision and ruled that:

• The appellants’ appointments would be protected, as per the 2012 High Court ruling.
• They would continue in service but be placed below the last general category candidate as of 28.11.2000.
• All benefits earned under the Scheduled Tribe category after 28.11.2000 would be withdrawn.
• There would be no recovery of benefits already availed before the cut-off date.
• Any actions taken based on the High Court’s impugned order would be reversed accordingly.

The Supreme Court concluded that the principle of finality of judgments must be respected, and once the earlier ruling had been upheld, it could not be disregarded in subsequent proceedings.

Impact of the Judgment

This ruling reinforces the legal doctrine that once a court ruling attains finality, it cannot be overturned through collateral proceedings. The case also highlights the importance of striking a balance between ensuring fair employment practices and protecting employees from arbitrary termination.

While the judgment ensures that employees who had been wrongly placed in the reserved category do not retain undue benefits, it also prevents them from being unfairly dismissed after decades of service. The ruling is likely to be a reference point for future cases involving caste-based reservations and employment disputes in India.

Petitioner Name: S.G. Barapatre & Ors..
Respondent Name: Shri Ananta Gajanan Gaiki & Ors..
Judgment By: Justice Kurian Joseph, Justice S. Abdul Nazeer.
Place Of Incident: Nagpur.
Judgment Date: 10-10-2018.

Don’t miss out on the full details! Download the complete judgment in PDF format below and gain valuable insights instantly!

Download Judgment: S.G. Barapatre & Ors vs Shri Ananta Gajanan Supreme Court of India Judgment Dated 10-10-2018.pdf

Direct Downlaod Judgment: Direct downlaod this Judgment

See all petitions in Employment Disputes
See all petitions in Public Sector Employees
See all petitions in Termination Cases
See all petitions in Judgment by Kurian Joseph
See all petitions in Judgment by S. Abdul Nazeer
See all petitions in partially allowed
See all petitions in Modified
See all petitions in supreme court of India judgments October 2018
See all petitions in 2018 judgments

See all posts in Service Matters Category
See all allowed petitions in Service Matters Category
See all Dismissed petitions in Service Matters Category
See all partially allowed petitions in Service Matters Category