Exclusion Of A Caste From SC/ST List Operates Prospectively; Reservation Benefit, Once Accrued, Continues For Life: Gujarat High Court
The Court held that since the employee belonged to the Mochi caste when it was recognised as a Scheduled Caste throughout Gujarat and had validly availed reservation benefits, his entitlement continued throughout his service, making the date of promotion irrelevant.
Justice N.S. Sanjay Gowda, Justice J. L. Odedra, Gujarat High Court
The Gujarat High Court has held that the exclusion of a caste from the Presidential list of Scheduled Castes can only operate prospectively, and that a person born into a caste while it stood specified as a Scheduled Caste, or who availed reservation benefits during the period of such specification, continues to be entitled to those benefits throughout his lifetime, notwithstanding subsequent exclusion of the caste by Parliament.
The Court held that such a person acquires a constitutionally protected vested right the moment he is born into a specified caste, which cannot be divested by a later parliamentary amendment excluding the caste, and accordingly upheld the restoration of a promotion earlier revoked from an Employees' Provident Fund Organisation employee belonging to the Mochi caste.
A Division Bench of Justice N.S. Sanjay Gowda and Justice J.L. Odedra observed, “The exclusion of a caste from the list of scheduled castes can only be prospective and the benefits that had accrued on a person who had been born into the caste when it was included in the list of scheduled castes would continue to adhere to him during his life time. This is fundamentally because caste is acquired by birth and comes to an end only on the death of the person”.
“A contrary view that a person would loose all the benefits of reservation that was initially conferred on him on his caste being excluded from the specification as a scheduled case, would basically mean that the law seeks to abandon an individual midway and expect him to fend for himself, and that too after promising him a secured and bright future. Such an interpretation of the effect of a Parliamentary law, in essence, would mean that a person who had been granted a constitutional right would lose that constitutional right and be left in the lurch because of a Parliamentary law. This interpretation of a parliamentary law would be constitutionally immoral”, it further noted.
Advocate Rajesh K. Savjani appeared for the petitioners and Advocate Himanshi R. Balodi appeared for the respondent.
The respondent, Ranjit Vasantlal Makwana, was appointed as a Lower Division Clerk in the EPFO in 1995 under the Scheduled Caste category, the Mochi caste having been specified as a Scheduled Caste throughout Gujarat since 1976.
In 2002, Parliament amended the Presidential Order to confine the Scheduled Caste specification for Mochis to only two areas: Dangs district and Umbergaon taluka of Valsad district. In 2003, before this restriction was applied to him, Makwana was promoted to Enforcement Officer on the basis of his reserved category status.
Nine years later, in 2012, the EPFO reverted him to his substantive post, reasoning that since he did not hail from the specified areas, he could not claim Scheduled Caste status under the 2002 amendment. The Central Administrative Tribunal set aside this reversion, holding that the relevant date for assessing reservation status was the date the promotional vacancy arose in 2000, when all Mochis in Gujarat were still specified as Scheduled Caste, leading the EPFO to challenge the Tribunal's order before the High Court.
The EPFO contended that reservation status had to be assessed as on the date of actual promotion, not the date the vacancy arose, and that since Makwana did not belong to the specified areas, he was ineligible for the benefit by 2003. The respondent argued that caste is acquired involuntarily at birth and remains for life, and that a constitutional right of this nature, once conferred, could not be withdrawn by a subsequent legislative change.
Undertaking an extensive review of the constitutional scheme governing Scheduled Castes and the legislative history of the Mochi caste's specification in Gujarat, under Scheduled Caste throughout Gujarat from 1976 to 2002, before area restrictions were reintroduced, the Court held that the power under Article 341(2) to modify or exclude a caste from the list does not operate to strip away benefits already accrued to individuals during the period of specification.
“It will also have to be noticed that a person who is born into a caste acquires a vested right to gain the benefits of reservation because of the fact that his caste had been specified as a Scheduled caste when he was born. Similarly, when a caste is specified as a Scheduled caste, all the persons who belong to that caste at that point in time also acquire a vested right to be considered as a Scheduled caste. This right, in fact, would be a constitutionally protected right and this constitutional right cannot be divested by a Parliamentary law. It must be borne in mind that once a right vests in a person, a subsequent law cannot divest that right and this principle would apply with greater force when it comes to a right which is vested constitutionally”, the Bench said.
Therefore, the Court held that since he was born into, and had availed reservation benefits during, the period when Mochis were specified as Scheduled Caste throughout Gujarat, he remained entitled to reservation benefits for his entire career, rendering the question of whether the vacancy or promotion date was determinative irrelevant.
The Bench distinguished the Supreme Court's judgment in Shree Surat Valsad Jilla KMC Parishad v. Union of India (2007) 5 SCC 360, relied upon by the EPFO, holding that a dealership secured only through a letter of intent was not comparable to a vested right accruing from public employment reservation.
The Court accordingly dismissed the EPFO's writ petition and affirmed the Tribunal's order restoring his promotion.
Cause Title: Employees' Provident Fund Organization & Ors. v. Ranjit Vasantlal Makwana (Neutral Citation:2026:GUJHC:45467-DB)
Appearances:
Petitioners: Rajesh K. Savjani, Advocate.
Respondent: Himanshi R. Balodi, Advocate.