State Can Verify Caste Certificates Of Central Employees Availing Reservation: Bombay High Court
The Bombay High Court has held that the State Legislature is fully competent to enact provisions requiring verification of caste certificates under Sections 6(1) and 6(3) of the Maharashtra Caste Certificate Act, 2000, even in respect of employees of the Central Government, where such employees derive reservation benefits on the strength of caste certificates issued by State authorities....
The Bombay High Court has held that the State Legislature is fully competent to enact provisions requiring verification of caste certificates under Sections 6(1) and 6(3) of the Maharashtra Caste Certificate Act, 2000, even in respect of employees of the Central Government, where such employees derive reservation benefits on the strength of caste certificates issued by State authorities. The Court rejected the contention that the State legislature had encroached upon the Union's domain relating to services under Entry 70 of List I.
Justices M.S. Jawalkar and Raj D. Wakode were hearing two connected petitions filed by Central Government employees, challenging the constitutional validity of Sections 6(1) and 6(3) of the 2000 Act and Rule 9 of the 2003 Rules. The petitioners contended that, being employees of the Central Government, their caste certificates could not be subjected to scrutiny by the State's Caste Scrutiny Committee, especially when they had been appointed decades earlier on the basis of certificates verified by the District Magistrate. They argued that the Act of 2000 could not apply to them, that the Scrutiny Committee lacked jurisdiction, and that the State had no legislative competence to regulate caste verification for Central services.
At the outset, the Court noted that the challenge is fallacious because a challenge to legislative incompetence in enacting a Statutory provision cannot be entertained on the ground that the provision is being applied to a set of persons to whom it is claimed that it should not be applied.
The Court rejected the plea of legislative incompetence, holding that the Act of 2000 does not regulate recruitment or service conditions of Central Government employees, but only provides a statutory mechanism for the issuance and verification of caste certificates. It observed:
“Sec.6(1) of the Act of 2000, merely empowers the State to constitute one or more Scrutiny Committees, for the purposes of verification of the caste/tribe certificate… none of the provisions of the Act of 2000, much less Sec.6(1) of Sec.6(3) thereof determine or relate to the service conditions of any category of persons… the challenge to Sec.6(1) of the Act of 2000 and Rule 9 of the Rules of 2003, on the ground of legislative incompetence must fail.”
The Court clarified that the Act merely ensures that only genuine beneficiaries receive reservation benefits, and that its operation does not interfere with Central service conditions.
The Court further observed that Section 6(3), which requires appointing authorities of the Central Government and PSUs to refer caste certificates for scrutiny, is consistent with Sections 4(2) and 6(2) of the Act, which mandate that all caste certificates issued by the competent authority are valid only after verification by the Scrutiny Committee. The Bench emphasised that allowing Central employees to bypass scrutiny would permit automatic transfer of unverified caste claims to future generations, undermining the integrity of the reservation system.
Hence, the Court held that none of the impugned provisions are unconstitutional.
Case Title: Anand Shankarrao Kolhatkar & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors. [WRIT PETITION NO. 2805 OF 2024]