K. NIRMALA & ORS. versus CANARA BANK & ANR.
[2024] 8 S.C.R. 868, Supreme Court of India, 2024
Outcome: Appeal(s) allowed (Granted)
Segment: Issues
[2024] 8 S.C.R. 868 : 2024 INSC 634
K. Nirmala & Ors. 
v. 
Canara Bank & Anr.
(Civil Appeal No(s). 9916-9920 of 2024)
28 August 2024
[Hima Kohli and Sandeep Mehta,* JJ.]
Issue for Consideration
Whether a person who joined the services of a Nationalized 
Bank/Government of India undertaking based on a certificate that 
identified him/her as belonging to a Scheduled Caste/Scheduled 
Tribe in the State of Karnataka, pursuant to the State Government’s 
notifications, would be entitled to retain the position after the caste/
tribe was de-scheduled.
Headnotes†
Service Law – Appellants were employed by respondent 
No.1-bank in the Scheduled Castes Category based on 
Caste Certificates obtained following due process of law, 
certifying that they belonged to the ‘Kotegara’ community, a 
synonymous caste which was made equivalent to the caste 
called ‘Kotegar Matri’ (included in the Scheduled Castes list) 
by a Circular issued by the State of Karnataka – However, 
in view of the decision of the Constitution Bench in Milind 
case holding that any inclusion/exclusion in or from the 
list of Scheduled Castes can only be made through an Act 
of Parliament u/Articles 341 and 342 of the Constitution of 
India, the State of Karnataka de-scheduled the castes of the 
appellants – Show cause notices issued to the appellants 
to show cause as to why their services be not terminated – 
Writ petitions filed by appellants, rejected by High Court – 
Interference with:
Held: Impugned judgments
quashed and set aside – Proposed 
action of the respondent banks in issuing show cause notices to 
the appellants, is unsustainable and quashed – Circulars dated 
11.03.2002 and 29.03.2003 were issued by State Government 
* Author
[2024] 8 S.C.R. 
869
K. Nirmala & Ors. v. Canara Bank & Anr.
protecting the employment of those who benefited by these Caste 
Certificates obtained prior to issuance of the aforesaid circulars – 
Thus, appellants are entitled to protection of their services by virtue 
of the circular dated 29.03.2003, as ratified by communication dated 
17.08.2005 issued by the Ministry of Finance, which specifically 
extended protection to various castes including those which were 
excluded in the earlier Government circular dated 11.03.2002 and 
covered the castes such as Kotegara, Kotekshathriya, Koteyava, 
Koteyar, Ramakshathriya, Sherugara and Sarvegara, ensuring 
that individuals of these castes holding Scheduled Castes 
Certificates issued prior to de-scheduling would be entitled to 
claim protection of their services albeit as unreserved candidates 
for all future purposes – The aforesaid communication dated 
17.08.2005 reinforced the protective umbrella to the concerned 
bank employees and also saved them from departmental and 
criminal action. [Paras 35, 37]
Case Law Cited
State of Maharashtra v. Milind and Others [2000] Supp. 5 SCR 
65 : (2001) 1 SCC 4 – followed.
Chairman and Managing Director Food Corporation of India and 
Others v. Jagadish Balaram Bahira and Others [2017] 11 SCR 
271 : (2017) 8 SCC 670 – referred to.
List of Acts
Constitution of India.
List of Keywords
Articles 341 and 342 of the Constitution of India; Government 
circular; De-scheduling of castes; Castes
de-scheduled; State 
of Karnataka; Scheduled Caste (SC)/Scheduled Tribe (ST); 
Scheduled Castes Certificates; Castes redesignated under the 
list of SC/ST; Scheduled Castes Category; Caste Certificates; 
‘Kotegara’ community, ‘Kotegar Matri’; Synonymous caste; 
Scheduled Castes list; Show cause notices; Nationalized Bank/
Government of India undertaking; False or fake Caste Certificates; 
Government Circulars.
870
[2024] 8 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
Case Arising From
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal Nos. 9916-9920 
of 2024
From the Judgment and Order dated 24.04.2019 of the High Court 
of Karnataka at Bengaluru in WA Nos. 189, 190, 191, 192 and 193 
of 2019
With
Civil Appeal Nos. 9922, 9923-9924 and 9921 of 2024
Appearances for Parties
K.V. Dhananjay, A Velan, Ms. Navpreet Kaur, Dheeraj SA, Vikash 
Chandra Shukla, Seetharaman Venkat, Aishvary Vikram, Tarun Gulia, 
Ajay Awasthi, Siddhartha Relan, Mukul Rathor, Anil Katarki, Ms. 
Veena Katarki, Anurag Katarki, Deva Vrat Anand, T. R. B. Sivakumar, 
Advs. for the Appellants.
Nishant Patil, A.A.G., Dhruv Mehta, Sr. Adv., Rajesh Kumar Gautam, 
Anant Gautam, Ms. Nishi Sangtani, Samir Mudgil, R.P. Daida, Ms. 
Kavitoli G Yeptho, Ms. Likivi Jakhalu, Kushagra Nilesh Sahay, Arvind 
Ray, Tridibe Bose, Karanveer Singh Anand, M/s. Khaitan & Co., Rahul 
Ranjan Verma, Ms. Ashmita Bisarya, Nirmal Kumar Ambastha, D. L. 
Chidananda, Vignesh Adithiya S, Ayush P Shah, V. N. Raghupathy, 
Advs. for the Respondents.
Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court
Judgment
Mehta, J.
1.	
Heard.
2.	
Leave granted.
3.	
This batch of appeals, which involves identical questions of fact and 
law, arises from the judgments delivered by the Division Bench of 
the High Court of Karnataka, as listed in the table below. Given the 
similarities, the appeals have been heard together and are being 
decided collectively.
[2024] 8 S.C.R. 
871
K. Nirmala & Ors. v. Canara Bank & Anr.
SLP No(s).
Writ Appeal 
No(s).
Date of 
Impugned 
Judgement
Concerned 
Respondents/ 
Employer
Community 
(Scheduled 
Caste/
Scheduled 
Tribe)
Special 
Leave 
Petition(C) 
No. 13484-
13488 of 
2019
Writ Appeal 
No. 189-193 
of 2019
24th April, 
2019
The Canara 
Bank of India
Kotegara (SC)
Special 
Leave 
Petition(C) 
No. 19877 
of 2019
Writ Appeal 
No. 2253 of 
2018 (S-R)
3rd July, 
2019
The Oriental 
Insurance Co. 
Ltd.
Kuruba (ST)
Special 
Leave 
Petition(C) 
No. 23500-
23501 of 
2019
Writ Appeal 
No. 3666 of 
2016(S-DIS) 
c/w Writ 
Appeal No. 
3483 of 
2016
3rd July, 
2019
The Hindustan 
Aeronautics 
Ltd.
Kuruba (ST)
Special 
Leave 
Petition(C) 
No. 13453 
of 2019
Writ Appeal 
No. 316 of 
2019
24th April, 
2019
The Canara 
Bank of India
Kotegara (SC)
Civil Appeals arising out of SLP (C) No(s). 13484-13488 of 2019 
shall be treated as the lead matter. The outcome of these appeals 
shall govern all the connected matters.
4.	
The common thread that runs through these matters is as to whether 
a person who joined the services of a Nationalized Bank/Government 
of India undertaking based on a certificate that identified him/her as 
belonging to a Scheduled Caste(‘SC’)/Scheduled Tribe(‘ST’) in the 
State of Karnataka, pursuant to the State Government’s notifications,
872
[2024] 8 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
would be entitled to retain the position after the caste/tribe has been 
de-scheduled. The situation has arisen on account of the State 
of Karnataka re-designating some castes under the list of SC/ST, 
inspite of the fact that this jurisdiction is exclusively conferred upon 
the Parliament by virtue of the scheme under Articles 341 and 342 
of the Constitution of India.
5.	
In brief, the individual details of the appellants in the lead matter 
are detailed below: -
S. 
No.
Name of the 
Appellant herein
Date of 
Issuance 
of Caste 
Certificate
Date of Joining 
Service
1.
K. Nirmala/Appellant 
No. 1
6th February, 
1978
26th December, 
1978
2.
K.V. Shankar/
Appellant No. 2
17th March, 
1978
20th July, 1981
3.
D.K. Prabhakar/
Appellant No. 3
17th March, 
1978
24th March, 1981
4.
S. Suresh/Appellant 
No. 4
2nd March, 
1981
23rd March, 1981
5.
Muktha S. Rao/
Appellant No. 5
30th November, 
1987
30th November, 
1987
6.	
As evident from the table above, appellant Nos. 1 to 5 in Civil 
Appeals @ SLP(C) Nos. 13484-13488 of 2019 were employed by the 
Canara Bank(hereinafter referred to as ‘respondent No.1-bank’) in the 
Scheduled Castes Category based on Caste Certificates, certifying 
that they belonged to the ‘Kotegara’ community, a synonymous 
caste which was made equivalent to the caste called ‘Kotegar Matri’ 
(included in the Scheduled Castes list) by a Government circular 
dated 21st November, 1977 issued by the State of
Karnataka. It is 
undisputed that the appellants duly obtained these Caste Certificates 
in accordance with the prevailing Government circular.
7.	
A Constitution Bench of this Court in State of Maharashtra v. Milind 
and Others,1 held that the State Government has no authority to 
1	
[2000] Supp. 5 SCR 65 : (2001) 1 SCC 4
[2024] 8 S.C.R. 
873
K. Nirmala & Ors. v. Canara Bank & Anr.
amend or modify the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes list 
published under Articles 341 and 342 of the Constitution of India. A 
caste can only be classified as a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled 
Tribe or a Socially and Educationally Backward Caste when the 
Presidential Order is issued to that effect in exercise of the powers 
prescribed under Articles 341, 342, and 342A of the Constitution 
of India respectively. In Milind (supra), this Court held as below: -
“15. Thus, it is clear that States have no power to amend 
Presidential Orders. Consequently, a party in power 
or the Government of the day in a State is relieved 
from the pressure or burden of tinkering with the 
Presidential Orders either to gain popularity or secure 
votes. Number of persons in order to gain advantage 
in securing admissions in educational institutions and 
employment in State services have been claiming as 
belonging to either Scheduled Castes or Scheduled 
Tribes depriving genuine and needy persons belonging to 
Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes covered by the 
Presidential Orders, defeating and frustrating to a large 
extent the very object of protective discrimination given 
to such people based on their educational and social 
backwardness. Courts cannot and should not expand 
jurisdiction to deal with the question as to whether 
a particular caste, sub-caste; a group or part of tribe 
or sub-tribe is included in any one
of the entries 
mentioned in the Presidential Orders issued under 
Articles 341 and 342 particularly so when in clause (2) 
of the said article, it is expressly stated that the said 
Orders cannot be amended or varied except by law 
made by Parliament. The power to include or exclude, 
amend or alter Presidential Order is expressly and 
exclusively conferred on and vested with Parliament 
and that too by making a law in that regard. The 
President had the benefit of consulting the States through 
Governors of States which had the means and machinery 
to find out and recommend as to whether a particular 
caste or tribe was to be included in the Presidential Order. 
If the said Orders are to be amended, it is Parliament 
that is in a better position to know having the means and
874
[2024] 8 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
machinery unlike courts as to why a particular caste or 
tribe is to be included or excluded by law to be made by 
Parliament. Allowing the State Governments or courts or 
other authorities or Tribunals to hold inquiry as to whether 
a particular caste or tribe should be considered as one 
included in the schedule of the Presidential Order, when 
it is not so specifically included, may lead to problems. In 
order to gain advantage of reservations for the purpose of 
Article 15(4) or 16(4) several persons have been coming 
forward claiming to be covered by Presidential Orders 
issued under Articles 341 and 342. This apart, when no 
other authority other than Parliament, that too by law alone 
can amend the Presidential Orders, neither the State 
Governments nor the courts nor Tribunals nor any authority 
can assume jurisdiction to hold inquiry and take evidence 
to declare that a caste or a tribe or part of or a group within 
a caste or tribe is included in Presidential Orders in one 
entry or the other although they are not expressly and 
specifically included. A court cannot alter or amend the 
said Presidential Orders for the very good reason that 
it has no power to do so within the meaning, content 
and scope of Articles 341 and 342. It is not possible 
to hold that either any inquiry is permissible or any 
evidence can be let in, in relation to a particular caste 
or tribe to say whether it is included within
Presidential 
Orders when it is not so expressly included.
(emphasis supplied)
8.	
Pursuant to the judgment in the case of Milind (supra), the Ministry 
of Finance, Department of Economic Affairs(Banking Division), 
Government of India in consultation with the Ministry of Welfare 
vide letter dated 12th March 1987, declared the State of Karnataka 
circulars which included the ‘Kotegara’ caste in the list of Scheduled 
Castes in the State of Karnataka to be non-est. The letter addressed 
to the Chairman & Managing Director of the concerned authorities 
is reproduced herein below:-
“......Persons belonging to Kotegara, Kote-Kshatriya are not 
entitled to get benefits as scheduled castes in Karnataka. 
These communities have never been(sic) treated as
[2024] 8 S.C.R. 
875
K. Nirmala & Ors. v. Canara Bank & Anr.
scheduled castes in Karnataka. The State Government 
have no power to make any amendment in the existing 
lists of lists, of SCs/STs can be done only through an Act 
of Parliament in view of Articles 341(2) and 342(2) of the 
constitution. In view of this, the orders issued by the Govt. 
of Karnataka to this effect does not have any validity.
In view of the position explained above, persons belonging 
to Kotegara and Kote-Kshatriya who have been appointed 
against the vacancy reserved for scheduled castes cannot 
be treated as scheduled castes even at the time of their 
initial appointment because these community have never 
been treated as synonymous of Kotegar-Matri(sic) by 
the Government of India which is in the list of SSC in 
Karnataka. It is infact, entirely the responsible of employer 
Department to have the matter verified through the State 
Government, before accepting the claim of the candidates 
who have been appointed against the reserved posts.” 
9.	
The Government of Karnataka issued a circular dated 11th March, 
2002 providing protection to individuals employed in State services 
who had obtained Caste Certificates based on a synonymous 
caste under the Government circulars, issued by the State. These 
individuals were to be treated as having been appointed under the 
General Merit(GM) category, effective from 11th March, 2002. The 
said circular also provided that such candidates would not be
eligible 
for future promotions or any other benefits as SCs/STs, although 
they could claim benefits under the respective Backward Classes 
to which they belonged. Although the ‘Kotegara’ community was not 
included in this circular, a subsequent circular dated 29th March, 2003 
was issued by the Government of Karnataka, extending the benefits 
of the circular dated 11th March, 2002 to individuals belonging to 
the Kotegara, Kotekshathriya, Koteyava, Koteyar, Ramakshathriya, 
Sherugara, and Sarvegara communities, who had obtained Caste 
Certificates in accordance with the earlier Government circulars. 
10.	 It is also undisputed that the Caste Certificates held by the appellants 
were cancelled by the Competent Authority, namely the District 
Caste Verification Committee, and this decision was communicated 
to their respective employers. Subsequently, criminal proceedings 
were initiated against some of the appellants at the concerned police
876
[2024] 8 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
station; however, these proceedings were quashed by the High Court 
while exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal 
Procedure, 1973(hereinafter referred to as ‘CrPC’).
11.	 Respondent No. 2 i.e., Additional Director General of Police, 
Directorate of Civil Rights Enforcement Cell, intimated respondent 
No.1-bank to terminate the services of the appellants on the ground 
that they had secured employment based on fake Caste Certificates. 
In turn, respondent No.1-bank issued notices to the appellants calling 
upon them to show cause as to why their services should not be 
terminated. The appellants challenged the aforesaid notices by filing 
writ petitions before the High Court of Karnataka which came to be 
rejected.
12.	 Being aggrieved by the dismissal of their writ petitions, the appellants 
preferred intra-Court writ appeals before the learned Division Bench 
of the High Court against the order of the learned Single Judge. The 
Division Bench of the High Court dismissed the intra-Court appeals.
13.	 This batch of appeals by special leave has been preferred to assail 
the decisions of the learned Division Bench of the High Court of 
Karnataka, rejecting the writ appeals as indicated in the table above.
Submissions on behalf of the appellants: -
14.	 Learned counsel representing the appellants, vehemently and 
fervently contended that the very foundation of the case as presented 
by respondent No.
1-bank and the other employers, that the Caste 
Certificates held by the appellants are false/fake, is misplaced. They 
contended that the Caste Certificates were validly issued by the 
Competent Authority, affirming/certifying that the appellants belonged 
to the Scheduled Caste as their caste had been included in the 
Scheduled Castes list by virtue of the notifications/circulars issued 
by the Government of Karnataka. They further submitted that the 
effect of the cancellation of these Caste Certificates pursuant to the 
judgment in Milind (supra) would only deprive the appellants from 
claiming any additional/future service benefits including promotion 
etc. based on their reserved category status. None of the appellants 
had ever misrepresented themselves before the authorities regarding 
their caste and the contentious Caste Certificates were issued after 
following the due process of law, and thus the same cannot be 
questioned as false or fake Certificates.
[2024] 8 S.C.R. 
877
K. Nirmala & Ors. v. Canara Bank & Anr.
15.	 Learned counsel further submitted that following the Government 
circulars dated 11th March, 2002 and 29th March, 2003 issued by the 
Government of Karnataka, the Ministry of Finance(Department of 
Financial Services)(Welfare Section), Government of India had also 
issued a letter dated 17th August, 2005, to the Chairman and Managing 
Director, State Bank of Mysore with the following directions: -
“2. In para 2 of this Ministry’s letter No.4(4)/2002-SCT(B) 
dated 30th April, 2003, it has been suggested that where 
the caste certificate is cancelled by the State Government 
after consideration of the matter by the Security Committee 
consisting of 3 members and where the concerned 
employee was given a chance to present his case before 
the Committee, no further disciplinary proceedings need 
be taken and the employee’s services can be terminated 
forthwith.
3. It has, inter alia, been stated in your letter under 
reference that based on the Government of Karnataka’s 
Order dated 29 March 2003, several employees whose 
caste certificates are no longer valid, are seeking their 
appointment to be considered in general category and 
withdrawal of pending cases against them to permitting 
them to surrender their original caste certificates to the 
competent authority for cancellation.
4. In this regard, it is clarified that where the scheduled 
caste has been de-scheduled/de-notified after appointment 
in the
Bank, the concerned employee may be treated as 
a general category employee in the post based roster and 
the disciplinary case, if any pending against him/her may 
be withdrawn by permitting him/her to surrender the original 
caste certificate to the competent authority for cancellation.”
Placing reliance on the letter dated 17th August, 2005, learned counsel 
submitted that the above communication clearly provides that when 
a Scheduled Caste has been de-scheduled or de-notified after an 
employee(s) appointment in the bank, such employee(s) may be 
reclassified as General category employee(s) in the post-based roster. 
Any pending disciplinary cases against the employee(s) should be 
withdrawn, requiring them to surrender the original Caste Certificate 
to the Competent Authority for cancellation.
878
[2024] 8 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
16.	 Learned counsel contended that since the Ministry of Finance, 
Government of India, had also endorsed the views expressed in 
the circulars dated 11th March, 2002 and 29th March, 2003 issued 
by the Government of Karnataka, the learned Division Bench of the 
High Court fell in error while denying relief to the appellants and in 
refusing to protect their services by granting them the benefits of 
these circulars. He also asserted that the subsequent communication 
via Office Memorandum issued by the Ministry of Social Justice and 
Empowerment on 8th July, 2013 relied upon by the respondents cannot 
be read and employed to the detriment of the appellants because 
the same does not have retrospective application.
17.	 Learned counsel further submitted that the Division Bench of the 
Karnataka High Court erred in denying relief to the appellants by 
relying upon the judgment in the case of Chairman and Managing 
Director Food Corporation of India and Others v. Jagadish 
Balaram Bahira and Others 2 because the ratio of the said judgment 
is based on the interpretation of the “Maharashtra Scheduled Castes, 
Scheduled Tribes, De-notified Tribes (Vimukta Jatis), Nomadic Tribes, 
Other Backward Classes, and Special Backward Category (Regulation 
of Issuance and Verification of) Caste Certificate Act, 2000”, which 
was a special enactment specific to the State of Maharashtra. No 
such enactment exists in the State of Karnataka,
which, in contrast, 
had issued circulars dated 11th March, 2002 and 29th March, 2003, 
protecting those individuals who had obtained Caste Certificates on 
the basis of pre-existing circulars issued by the State by referring to 
the synonymous castes.
18.	 On these grounds, learned counsel for the appellants implored the 
Court to accept the appeals; set aside the impugned orders; and 
command the respondents to protect the services of the appellants. 
Submissions on behalf of the respondents:-
19.	 E-converso, learned counsel representing the respondents, 
vehemently and fervently opposed the contentions advanced on 
behalf of the appellants. They urged that the appellants had procured 
employment against the reserved category seats based on false Caste 
Certificates and thus, they are not entitled to protect their services. 
It was submitted that the Government circulars dated 11th March, 
2	
[2017] 11 SCR 271 : (2017) 8 SCC 670
[2024] 8 S.C.R. 
879
K. Nirmala & Ors. v. Canara Bank & Anr.
2002 and 29th March, 2003 issued by the Government of Karnataka 
provided protection only to the individuals employed in the State 
services and thus, the said circulars could not have enured to the 
benefit of individuals akin to the appellants who procured employment 
with the Central Government/Government of India Undertakings/
Autonomous Institutions over which the Government of India has 
deep and pervasive control.
20.	 Learned counsel for the respondents stressed upon the Office 
Memorandum dated 8th July, 2013 issued by the Ministry of Social 
Justice and Empowerment, Government of India referring to the 
Government of Karnataka circular dated 11th March, 2002 and urged 
that the synonymous castes, Kotegara, Kotekshathriya, Koteyava, 
Koteyar, Ramakshathriya, Sherugara, and Sarvegara, etc. are not 
mentioned in the Scheduled Castes list of the State of Karnataka 
and therefore, the members of these synonymous castes i.e., the 
appellants herein cannot claim the benefits of the Scheduled Caste 
category even in the State of Karnataka.
21.	 Learned counsel submitted that the controversy at hand is squarely 
covered by the Constitution Bench judgment of this Court in the case 
of Milind (supra), wherein it has been laid down beyond the pale 
of doubt that the States have no power to amend the Presidential 
Orders issued under Article 341 of the Constitution of India. The 
power to include or exclude, amend or
alter the Presidential Order 
is expressly and exclusively conferred on and vested with the 
Parliament, and that too by making law in this regard, and thus, the 
appellants were rightly denied relief by the Division Bench of the 
Karnataka High Court.
22.	 Learned counsel representing the respondent No.1-bank, urged that 
the appellants are not entitled to claim protection of their services 
which they procured against the reserved seats on the basis of false 
or fake Caste Certificates. 
23.	 Learned counsel representing the other respondents-employers 
adopted the above submissions and implored the Court to dismiss 
the appeals and affirm the judgments rendered by the High Court.
24.	 We have given our thoughtful consideration to the submissions 
advanced at the bar and have gone through the impugned judgments 
and the material placed on record.
880
[2024] 8 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
Discussion and Conclusion: -
25.	 At the outset, it is to be noted that there is no dispute over the fact that 
the appellants obtained their Caste Certificates(under the Scheduled 
Castes category) by following the due process of law. When these 
Caste Certificates were issued, the synonymous caste, as of the 
appellants had been included in the list of Scheduled Castes by 
virtue of the circular issued by the Government of Karnataka, albeit 
by exercising powers that were not vested in the State. 
26.	 As held by the Constitution Bench in Milind (supra), any inclusion 
or exclusion in or from the list of Scheduled Castes can only be 
made through an Act of Parliament under Articles 341 and 342 of 
the Constitution of India. As a corollary thereto, neither the State 
Government nor the Courts have the authority to modify the list of 
Scheduled Castes as promulgated by the Presidential order under 
the above Articles.
27.	 For this precise reason, pursuant to the judgment in Milind (supra), 
the Government of Karnataka took the only permissible decision to 
de-schedule the castes to which the appellants herein belonged. 
However, considering the fact that the Caste Certificates issued 
to the appellants under the previous inclusions made by the State 
Government to the Scheduled Castes list, albeit under a legal 
misconception was not obtained through misrepresentation or fraud, 
the State Government took the pragmatic
decision to protect the 
employment of those individuals who had been benefited by these 
Caste Certificates obtained prior to issuance of the Government 
circulars dated 11th March, 2002 and 29th March, 2003. There is no 
dispute on the fact that each of the appellants herein fall within this 
category. These Government circulars clearly stipulate that individuals 
who secured employment based on the Caste Certificates issued 
under the erroneous Government circulars/orders would no longer 
be entitled to claim future benefits under such certificates and would 
henceforth be treated as General Merit category candidates for all 
practical purposes. 
28.	 The Ministry of Finance, Government of India, while referring to 
the Government of Karnataka’s circular dated 29th March 2003, 
clarified and recommended that in cases where a Scheduled Caste 
employee(s) has been de-scheduled after an appointment in the 
Bank, the concerned employee(s) may be treated under the General
[2024] 8 S.C.R. 
881
K. Nirmala & Ors. v. Canara Bank & Anr.
Merit category, and any disciplinary cases pending against him/her 
should be withdrawn, and such employee(s) would have to surrender 
the original Caste certificate to the Competent Authority.
29.	 There cannot be any two views on the proposition that with the 
issuance of the Government of Karnataka’s circulars dated 11th 
March, 2002 and 29th March, 2003, the Scheduled Caste Certificates 
held by the appellants herein stood automatically revoked and they 
were brought under the unreserved category with effect from 12th 
March, 1987.
30.	 In the case of Milind (supra), this Court was dealing with the issue 
regarding the State’s power to amend the Presidential Order. It was 
held that the State has no jurisdiction to tinker with the Presential 
Orders issued under Article 341 of the Constitution of India. It was 
not even urged by the learned counsel for the appellants that the 
certificates held by the appellants based on the erroneous list of 
inclusion issued by the State Government were valid or should 
be protected. Their only prayer was to protect the services of the 
appellants while conceding that their Caste Certificates would be 
deemed invalid and that they would not be entitled to any future 
benefits under the reserved category.
31.	 Even in the case of Milind (supra), while concluding the judgment, 
this Court saved the services of the respondents therein in the 
following manner:-
“38. Respondent
1 joined the medical course for the year 
1985-86. Almost 15 years have passed by now. We are 
told he has already completed the course and may be he 
is practising as a doctor. In this view and at this length 
of time it is for nobody’s benefit to annul his admission. 
Huge amount is spent on each candidate for completion of 
medical course. No doubt, one Scheduled Tribe candidate 
was deprived of joining medical course by the admission 
given to Respondent 1. If any action is taken against 
Respondent 1, it may lead to depriving the service of a 
doctor to the society on whom public money has already 
been spent. In these circumstances, this judgment shall 
not affect the degree obtained by him and his practising 
as a doctor. But we make it clear that he cannot claim to
882
[2024] 8 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
belong to the Scheduled Tribe covered by the Scheduled 
Tribes Order. In other words, he cannot take advantage 
of the Scheduled Tribes Order any further or for any other 
constitutional purpose. Having regard to the passage 
of time, in the given circumstances, including interim 
orders passed by this Court in SLP (C) No. 16372 of 
1985 and other related matters, we make it clear that 
the admissions and appointments that have become 
final, shall remain unaffected by this judgment.”
(emphasis added)
32.	 The circulars dated 11th March, 2002 and 29th March, 2003 were 
issued by the Government of Karnataka whereby, protection was 
extended to the persons who had taken advantage of the Caste 
Certificates issued prior to issuance of the letter dated 12th March, 
1987, by the Ministry of Finance, Government of India. Subsequently, 
the Ministry of Finance, Government of India vide office memorandum 
dated 17th August, 2005 also ratified this decision of the State, and 
extended the protection granted by the Government of Karnataka 
to the employees of the respondent No.1-bank.
33.	 On a close scrutiny of the Office Memorandum dated 8th July, 
2013, which was heavily relied upon by the learned counsel for the 
respondents, it transpires that the concerned authority in para 3 of 
the Office Memorandum referred only to the Government circular 
dated 11th March, 2002 issued by the Government of Karnataka for 
excluding certain
castes from the umbrella of protection. It states 
that “the Government Notification dated 11th March 2002 related 
to Parivara, Talwar, Maleru, Kuruba, Besta, and Koli communities, 
whose members had obtained Scheduled Tribe certificates. In the 
said order there is no mention of Kotegara, Kotekshathriya, Koteyava, 
Koteyar, Ramakshathriya, Sherugara, and Sarvegara, etc castes.”
34.	 Apparently thus, the above Office Memorandum was issued in 
ignorance of the Government of Karnataka’s circular dated 29th 
March 2003, which further extended the protection granted by 
the earlier Government circular dated 11th March, 2002 to the 
communities including Kotegara, Kotekshathriya, Koteyava, Koteyar, 
Ramakshathriya, Sherugara, and Sarvegara as well. This Government 
circular seems to have completely escaped the notice of the Ministry
[2024] 8 S.C.R. 
883
K. Nirmala & Ors. v. Canara Bank & Anr.
of Social Justice and Empowerment, Government of India while 
issuing the Office Memorandum dated 8th July, 2013. Clearly thus, 
the Office Memorandum suffers from the vice of non-consideration 
of a vital document being the circular dated 29th March, 2003 issued 
by the Government of Karnataka. Hence, we have no hesitation in 
holding that the Office Memorandum dated 8th July, 2013, cannot 
supersede the communication dated 17th August, 2005 issued by the 
Ministry of Finance and the same cannot be read to the prejudice 
of the appellants.
35.	 In wake of the discussion made above, we conclude that the 
appellants are entitled to protection of their services by virtue of 
the Government circular dated 29th March, 2003 issued by the 
Government of Karnataka as ratified by communication dated 17th 
August, 2005 issued by the Ministry of Finance. The circular dated 
29th March, 2003 issued by the Government of Karnataka specifically 
extended protection to various castes, including those which were 
excluded in the earlier Government circular dated 11th March, 2002. 
This subsequent circular covered the castes such as Kotegara, 
Kotekshathriya, Koteyava, Koteyar, Ramakshathriya, Sherugara, and 
Sarvegara, thus, ensuring that individuals of these castes, holding 
Scheduled Castes Certificates issued prior to de-scheduling, would 
be entitled to claim protection of their services albeit as unreserved 
candidates for
all future purposes. Additionally, the communication 
issued by the Ministry of Finance dated 17th August, 2005 reinforced 
the protective umbrella to the concerned bank employees and also 
saved them from departmental and criminal action. 
36.	 There is an additional feature in Civil Appeals @ SLP(C) Nos. 23500-
23501 of 2019, that must be highlighted. The appellant, in the said 
appeals namely Smt. Hemavathy, contends that she secured 8th rank 
in the Bachelor of Engineering course with a specialization in Industrial 
Production from Mysore University in 1995. It was argued on her 
behalf that regardless of the Caste Certificate, the appellant would 
have secured a job at Hindustan Aeronautics Limited(hereinafter 
being referred to as ‘HAL’) based on her merit in engineering degree 
and that the show cause notice was issued as women employees 
are not welcome in the institution(HAL). This significant contention 
raised by the appellant has not been adequately traversed by the 
respondent-HAL in their counter affidavit.
884
[2024] 8 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
37.	 Consequently, we hold that the proposed action of the respondent 
banks/undertakings in issuing notice(s) to the appellants to show 
cause as to why their services may not be terminated cannot be 
sustained and are hereby quashed. 
38.	 As a result, the impugned judgments rendered by the Division Bench 
do not stand to scrutiny, and hence, the same are quashed and set 
aside. 
39.	 The appeals are accordingly allowed in these terms. No costs.
40.	 Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
Result of the case: Appeals allowed.
†Headnotes prepared by: Divya Pandey