Allow Cookies!
By using our website, you agree to the use of cookies
Karnataka High court recently stated that Parliament can only make changes in the SC and ST list but not the State Government turning down the recent State’s interference with such.
“It is high time that the political class/lawmakers understand that the State Governments do not have the power to tinker with the Presidential Order. The State Governments, State Legislature and the Central Government are not vested with the power to tinker with the list of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes” which was observed by Justice R.Devdas.
Law only empowers the Parliament to include or exclude any caste, race or tribe from the list of SC & ST no matter what the intention of the Government is. H.R Sumangala and others filed petition who had joined various public-sector banks during 1979-82 using caste certificates grouping them under 'Rama Kshatriya', claiming that it was a synonym for the 'Kotegar' community which is notified as a Scheduled Caste.
During 1998 the validity of certificates was refused by the District Caste Verification Committee that “Rama Kshatriya” was not SC. Thereafter, during March, 2002 a government order was issued granting amnesty to all such persons who had secured jobs on the basis of caste certificates claiming that they belonged to the 'Kotegar community', even though persons belonging to Rama Kshatriya, Kote Kshatriya, Kotegara, Koteyava, Koteyara, Sherugara, and Sarvegara do not fall under the 'Kotegar community'. It was stated that hereafter hey will be treated as a general category in the ambit of employment the government has extended this protection to their employment.
On a communication received from the Additional Director-General of Police of the Directorate of Civil Rights Enforcement (DCRE), such employees were issued show cause notice by bank management. They contended that DCRE has no authority of law to direct initiation of action against them as they have surrendered their caste certificate way back in 2008-09.
However, the court held that it is without authority of law to continue the employment of petitioners in the respondent bank. Rule 7A of Karnataka SC/ST and other BC(Reservation of Appointments, Etc.) Rules, 1992 was pointed out that empowers the DCRE Cell to take steps to prosecute those who obtain false caste certificates.
It, in fact, stated that "allowing a thief to retain stolen property", which was said in the case of Chairman and Managing Director, FCI and Ors. Vs. Jagdish Balaram Bahira and others.
The court has also noted the case of Paduthota Ramachandra v. Union of India where Government Orders issued by the State government cannot vest a right contrary to Articles 341 and 342 of the Constitution of India. A grace period of one year was given by the State government to coordinate with the Central Government and the Parliament to include such sub-castes.
Assertion trust the respondents were duty bound to imitate actions and remove from service all those who have obtained employment in that way as the grace period was elapsed during 1996. Many persons including petitioners were benefitted due to delay in action on part of Directorate of Civil Rights Enforcement and out of those people many have attained superannuation age.
The petitions were, therefore, dismissed, with the court upholding the show cause notices as well as the decision of dismissal already taken by the authorities.
86540
103860
630
114
59824