The Gujarat High Court has ruled that Scheduled Caste reservation benefits lawfully acquired when a caste was recognised as a Scheduled Caste cannot be taken away because Parliament subsequently amends the Scheduled Castes list, holding that constitutional rights, once “vested”, cannot be “divested” by a later law.Justices N S Sanjay Gowda and Justice J L Odedra were hearing a petition filed by the Employees’ Provident Fund Organisation (EPFO) against a Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) order in favour of its employee, one Ranjit Vasantlal Makwana. The court was considering whether a subsequent amendment restricting Scheduled Caste status for the Mochi community in Gujarat could deprive him of reservation benefits that he had already lawfully availed.“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.…A person who is born into a caste which was specified as a Scheduled Caste at the time of his birth or a person who had taken the benefit of reservation because his caste had been specified as a Scheduled Caste at that point in time, will be entitled to all the benefits of reservation during his entire lifetime and would not lose it midway,” the court said on July 17.The dispute arose after the EPFO reverted Makwana from the post of enforcement officer/accounts officer to upper division clerk in 2012, nearly nine years after promoting him under the Scheduled Caste quota, on the ground that Parliament had, in the meantime, restored geographical restrictions for recognition of the Mochi community as a Scheduled Caste in Gujarat. The high court upheld the CAT’s order setting aside the reversion. Justices N S Sanjay Gowda and J L Odedra said that later amendment to the Scheduled Castes list cannot strip vested reservation rights. (Image enhanced using AI)DisputeMakwana joined the EPFO as a lower division clerk on April 7, 1995, under the Scheduled Caste category. At that time, the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Orders (Amendment) Act, 1976 had recognised the Mochi community as a Scheduled Caste throughout Gujarat.Parliament later enacted the Constitution (Scheduled Castes) Orders (Second Amendment) Act, 2002, which came into force on December 17, 2002. The amendment restored geographical restrictions and confined Scheduled Caste recognition for the Mochi community in Gujarat to persons belonging to Dang district and Umbergaon taluka of Valsad district.After clearing the departmental examination, Makwana was promoted as an enforcement officer/accounts officer on December 31, 2003. Nearly nine years later, on November 29, 2012, the EPFO reverted him to the post of upper division clerk, contending that after the 2002 amendment he was no longer entitled to reservation benefits because he did not belong to the notified geographical areas.Story continues below this adMakwana challenged the reversion before the CAT, which ruled in his favour, holding that the promotional vacancy had arisen in 2000, when the Mochi community was recognised as a Scheduled Caste throughout Gujarat, and therefore his promotion was valid. The EPFO challenged that decision before the high court.ArgumentsThe EPFO argued that the relevant date for determining reservation status was the date of promotion in 2003 and not the year in which the vacancy arose. It submitted that by the time Makwana was promoted, Parliament had already amended the Scheduled Castes list and restored geographical restrictions for the Mochi community in Gujarat.Since Makwana did not belong to the specified areas, he could not claim reservation benefits while receiving the promotion. The organisation also argued that once a caste ceased to be recognised as a Scheduled Caste under Article 341 of the Constitution, the benefits attached to that status could no longer be claimed by persons outside the revised list.Makwana argued that caste is acquired by birth and remains attached to a person throughout life. His counsel contended that he had entered service and availed reservation benefits when the Mochi community was recognised as a Scheduled Caste throughout Gujarat.Story continues below this adTherefore, a subsequent amendment to the Scheduled Castes list could not retrospectively deprive him of constitutional rights that had already vested. It was further argued that Parliament’s power to amend the Scheduled Castes list did not extend to extinguishing rights already acquired by individuals under the Constitution.What high court saidThe division bench undertook an extensive examination of Articles 15, 16, 17, 46, 335, 338 and 341 of the Constitution, along with the legislative history governing the Scheduled Caste status of the Mochi community in Gujarat.It analysed how the community was recognised throughout the State in 1976 before Parliament reintroduced geographical restrictions through the 2002 amendment.The court held that while Parliament unquestionably has the power under Article 341(2) to amend the Scheduled Castes list, such amendments cannot retrospectively divest a person of constitutional rights that had already vested when he or she lawfully enjoyed Scheduled Caste status.The bench held that a person who was born into a caste recognised as a Scheduled Caste at the relevant time, or who had already availed reservation benefits while the caste enjoyed that status, would continue to enjoy those benefits throughout his or her lifetime despite a subsequent amendment to the Scheduled Castes list.The court said, “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.”The judges said accepting the EPFO’s interpretation would lead to constitutionally unacceptable consequences.They added, “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.”The high court noted that the CAT had allowed Makwana’s claim on the ground that the promotional vacancy had arisen in 2000. However, once the court concluded that Makwana’s vested constitutional rights survived the 2002 amendment, it found it unnecessary to decide whether reservation had to be determined with reference to the vacancy year or the date of promotion.Applying these principles, the high court held that Makwana had entered service and availed reservation benefits when the Mochi community was recognised as a Scheduled Caste throughout Gujarat. The subsequent 2002 amendment could not divest him of those vested constitutional rights. The bench therefore dismissed the EPFO’s petition and affirmed the CAT’s order setting aside his reversion.