2014 (1) TMI 1953 - SC - Indian Laws

SC/ST employee's job protected despite certificate denial - res judicata prevents reopening settled caste status

R. Unnikrishnan and Ors. Versus V.K. Mahanudevan and Ors.

The SC dismissed an appeal challenging a HC order that protected a respondent's employment as Assistant Executive Engineer under SC/ST quota. The case ... Denial of grant of a Scheduled Caste Certificate on the basis that he was a 'Thandan' which was a notified Scheduled Caste - It is common ground that the Respondent was appointed as an Assistant Executive Engineer under a special recruitment scheme for SC/ST candidates. Whether the Appellants could have reopened for examination the caste status of the Respondent- V.K. Mahanudevan no matter judgment of the High Court in O.P. No. 9216 of 1986 had declared him to be a 'Thandan' belonging to a Scheduled Caste community? - HELD THAT:- It is trite that law favours finality to binding judicial decisions pronounced by Courts that are competent to deal with the subject matter. Public interest is against individuals being vexed twice over with the same kind of litigation. The binding character of judgments pronounced by the Courts of competent jurisdiction has always been treated as an essential part of the rule of law which is the basis of the administration of justice in this country - The binding character of judgments pronounced by courts of competent jurisdiction is itself an essential part of the rule of law, and the rule of law obviously is the basis of the administration of justice on which the Constitution lays so much emphasis. In Mathura Prasad v. Dossibai [1970 (2) TMI 139 - SUPREME COURT], this Court held that for the application of the rule of res-judicata, the Court is not concerned with the correctness or otherwise of the earlier judgment. The matter in issue if one purely of fact decided in the earlier proceedings by a competent Court must in any subsequent litigation between the same parties be recorded as finally decided and cannot be re-opened. That is true even in regard to mixed questions of law and fact determined in the earlier proceeding between the same parties which cannot be revised or reopened in a subsequent proceeding between the same parties. The order passed by the High Court in O.P. No. 9216 of 1986 which had attained finality did not permit a fresh enquiry into the caste status of writ-Petitioner. Inasmuch as the High Court quashed the said proceedings and the order passed by the State Government pursuant thereto, it committed no error to warrant interference. Whether the Respondent- V.K. Mahanudevan can claim protection against ouster from service and, if so, what is the effect of the change in law relevant to the caste status of the Respondent? - HELD THAT:- The Thandans regardless whether they were Ezhuvas/Thiyyas known as Thandans belonging to the Malabar area, were by reason of the above pronouncement of this Court held entitled to the benefit of being treated as scheduled caste by the Presidential Order, any enquiry into their being Thandans who were scheduled caste having been forbidden by this Court as legally impermissible. The distinction which the State Government sought to make between Ezhuva/Thiyyas known as Thandans like the Respondent on one hand and Thandans who fell in the scheduled caste category, on the other, thus stood abolished by reason of the above pronouncement. No such argument could be countenanced against the Respondent especially when it is not the case of the Appellants that the Respondent is not an Ezhuva from Malabar area of the State of Kerala. In the instant case there is no evidence of lack of bona fide by the Respondent. The protection available under the decision of Milind's case [2000 (11) TMI 1232 - SUPREME COURT] could, therefore, be admissible even to the Respondent. It follows that even if on a true and correct construction of the expression 'Thandan' appearing in The Constitution (Scheduled Castes) Order 2007 did not include 'Ezhuvas' and 'Thiyyas' known as 'Thandan' and assuming that the two were different at all relevant points of time, the fact that the position was not clear till the Amendment Act of 2007 made a clear distinction between the two would entitle all those appointed to serve the State upto the date of the Amending Act came into force to continue in service. The order passed by the High Court takes a fair view of the matter and does not suffer from any illegality or irregularity of any kind - appeal dismissed. Issues Involved:1. Whether the caste status of the Respondent could be re-opened despite a prior judicial decision.2. The effect of the change in law on the Respondent's caste status and employment.Detailed Analysis:1. Re-opening of Caste Status:The primary issue was whether the State of Kerala could re-open the caste status of the Respondent, V.K. Mahanudevan, despite a prior judicial decision by the High Court in O.P. No. 9216 of 1986, which declared him to be a 'Thandan' belonging to a Scheduled Caste community. The High Court had ruled that its judgment in O.P. No. 9216 of 1986 had effectively settled the question regarding the Respondent's caste status, which could not be reopened as the judgment had attained finality. The Supreme Court affirmed this view, emphasizing the principle of res judicata, which prevents re-litigation of issues that have been conclusively settled by competent courts. The Court noted that even erroneous decisions can operate as res judicata, and only fraud could vitiate a judgment, which was not evident in this case. Therefore, the Court held that the order passed by the High Court in O.P. No. 9216 of 1986, which had attained finality, did not permit a fresh enquiry into the caste status of the Respondent.2. Effect of Change in Law on Caste Status and Employment:The second issue concerned the Respondent's protection against ouster from service in light of changes in the law regarding his caste status. The Constitution (Scheduled Castes) Order Amendment Act, 2007, clarified that Ezhuvas and Thiyyas known as Thandan in the erstwhile Cochin and Malabar areas were no longer recognized as Scheduled Castes. However, the Court highlighted that this change was prospective. The Court referred to its previous rulings, particularly in State of Maharashtra v. Milind and Kavita Solunke v. State of Maharashtra, to support the view that individuals who had already benefited from the reservation policies should not be ousted due to subsequent legal clarifications. The Court concluded that while the Respondent's benefits as a Scheduled Caste candidate until 30th August 2007 would remain undisturbed, any advantages gained after this date could be withdrawn if solely based on his Scheduled Caste status. The Respondent would not be entitled to future benefits as a Scheduled Caste candidate but could avail benefits as an OBC candidate.Conclusion:The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals, affirming that the Respondent's caste status could not be re-opened due to the finality of the High Court's prior judgment. It also recognized the prospective nature of the legal change, allowing the Respondent to retain benefits secured before the amendment, while clarifying his future status as an OBC candidate. The parties were directed to bear their own costs.