Introduction:

The Patna High Court has upheld the decision to consider candidates belonging to the Tanti-Tantwa community under the Extremely Backward Classes (EBC) category rather than the Scheduled Caste (SC) category in a recruitment process for the post of Trade Instructor (Fitter). The Court held that the reclassification was a necessary consequence of the Supreme Court’s judgment setting aside the Bihar Government’s 2015 resolution, which had extended Scheduled Caste reservation benefits to the community.

A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice V. Kameswar Rao and Justice Partha Sarthy dismissed an intra-court appeal filed by candidates who had challenged their exclusion from the selection process under Advertisement No. 10 of 2023. The appellants had initially applied as Scheduled Caste candidates, relying on their membership of the Tanti-Tantwa community. However, following the Supreme Court’s intervention and subsequent directions issued by the Bihar Government, the Bihar Technical Service Commission (BTSC) considered their candidature under the EBC category.

The dispute arose because the appellants had participated in the recruitment process at a time when the State Government’s earlier classification of the Tanti-Tantwa community as eligible for Scheduled Caste reservation was still relevant to the recruitment exercise. They claimed that they had submitted caste certificates, appeared in the examination, qualified in the selection process and were subsequently called for document verification. According to them, their eligibility and reservation category should have been determined with reference to the position existing when the recruitment advertisement was issued or when they submitted their applications.

The subsequent change in their classification, they argued, could not be applied to an ongoing recruitment process in a manner that deprived them of the opportunity to compete under the category in which they had originally applied.

The controversy, however, had to be examined in the light of the Supreme Court’s decision in Dr. Bhim Rao Ambedkar Vichar Manch Bihar, Patna v. State of Bihar & Ors., Civil Appeal No. 18802 of 2017. In that case, the Supreme Court had set aside the Bihar Government’s resolution dated July 1, 2015, through which members of the Tanti-Tantwa community had been extended reservation benefits under the Scheduled Caste category.

The Supreme Court directed that Scheduled Caste-reserved posts which had been extended to members of the Tanti-Tantwa community and filled after the 2015 resolution should be restored to the Scheduled Caste quota. It also directed that members of the community who had received such benefits could be accommodated under their original category, namely Extremely Backward Classes, and required the State Government to take appropriate measures to implement the decision.

In consequence of the Supreme Court’s judgment, the Bihar Government issued a Gazette notification dated August 12, 2024. The Labour Resources Department thereafter issued communications dated September 4 and September 19, 2024, directing the Bihar Technical Service Commission to rectify the merit list in accordance with the revised classification. The Commission subsequently issued a communication dated October 15, 2024, requiring candidates to produce valid caste certificates for consideration of their reservation claims.

Following these developments, the appellants were shifted from the Scheduled Caste category to the EBC category. Their candidature was then assessed against the cut-off marks applicable to EBC candidates. Since they had not secured the required marks under that category, they were not selected.

The appellants challenged the Commission’s decision, including its resolution dated October 30, 2024, before the Patna High Court. Their writ petition was dismissed by the Single Judge on August 11, 2025. They thereafter preferred an intra-court appeal, contending that the subsequent reclassification should not have affected a recruitment process that had already commenced under Advertisement No. 10 of 2023.

The Division Bench was therefore called upon to determine whether the appellants could continue to claim Scheduled Caste reservation benefits on the basis of the classification prevailing when the recruitment advertisement was issued, despite the Supreme Court’s subsequent judgment setting aside the State Government’s 2015 resolution. The central issue was whether the recruitment authorities were justified in applying the restored EBC classification while the selection process remained incomplete.

The judgment addresses the relationship between judicial directions concerning reservation classification and recruitment processes already underway. It also clarifies that participation in a recruitment exercise or progression to document verification does not, by itself, create an indefeasible right to appointment under a particular reservation category.

Arguments of the Parties:

The appellants challenged the decision of the Bihar Technical Service Commission to treat them as EBC candidates instead of Scheduled Caste candidates. Their principal contention was that the reservation category applicable to a candidate should be determined with reference to the legal and administrative position prevailing when the recruitment advertisement was issued or when the candidate submitted the application.

They had applied for the posts of Trade Instructor (Fitter) under Advertisement No. 10 of 2023 by claiming Scheduled Caste status on the basis of their membership of the Tanti-Tantwa community. According to them, the recruitment process had already progressed considerably before the authorities implemented the subsequent reclassification.

The appellants pointed out that they had submitted caste certificates, participated in the examination, been declared successful and received calls for document verification. They argued that these developments demonstrated that their candidature had been accepted under the Scheduled Caste category during the recruitment process.

Their grievance was that the authorities subsequently altered the category under which their candidature was considered, relying on developments that occurred after the recruitment advertisement had been issued. They contended that such a change should not be applied retrospectively to an ongoing selection process, particularly when they had participated in the examination on the basis of the category mentioned in their applications.

The appellants’ argument was founded on the principle that recruitment conditions should not ordinarily be altered to the disadvantage of candidates after the process has commenced. In their view, the authorities should have assessed their eligibility according to the classification that existed when they applied rather than introducing a subsequent change at a later stage.

The practical consequence of the reclassification was substantial. Under the Scheduled Caste category, the appellants believed that they had a valid opportunity to compete for the advertised posts. Once they were shifted to the EBC category, however, their marks were assessed against the cut-off applicable to that category. Since they did not meet the EBC cut-off, they were excluded from selection.

They therefore questioned the Commission’s decision to revise the merit list and sought judicial interference with the administrative action taken pursuant to the Supreme Court’s judgment. Their challenge also required the Court to consider whether the authorities could apply the consequences of that judgment to a recruitment exercise that had begun before the subsequent administrative implementation of the revised classification.

The State Government and the Bihar Technical Service Commission defended the reclassification on the ground that it was necessary to comply with the binding judgment of the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court, in Dr. Bhim Rao Ambedkar Vichar Manch Bihar, Patna v. State of Bihar & Ors., had set aside the State Government’s resolution dated July 1, 2015, which had extended Scheduled Caste reservation benefits to the Tanti-Tantwa community. The effect of that decision was that the community had to be treated under its original EBC classification rather than under the Scheduled Caste category.

The authorities maintained that the State Government had taken steps to implement the Supreme Court’s directions through the Gazette notification dated August 12, 2024, and the subsequent departmental communications. The Labour Resources Department had specifically directed the Commission to rectify the merit list in accordance with the revised classification.

The Commission’s position was that it could not continue to extend Scheduled Caste reservation benefits to the appellants after the legal basis for such benefits had been set aside by the Supreme Court. The fact that the recruitment advertisement had been published earlier did not permit the authorities to disregard a binding judicial decision while completing the selection process.

The Commission also relied on the fact that the recruitment process had not been finalised when the Supreme Court’s judgment was implemented. Since the selection remained incomplete, the authorities were required to ensure that the candidates were considered under the legally applicable reservation category.

Consequently, the appellants were assessed as EBC candidates. The Commission pointed out that they had failed to secure the qualifying cut-off marks applicable to that category and therefore could not be selected.

The respondents’ position was thus that the reclassification was not an arbitrary alteration of recruitment conditions but an administrative measure required to give effect to the Supreme Court’s judgment. The Commission could not preserve a reservation benefit that had been declared legally unsustainable merely because candidates had already participated in the examination under the earlier classification.

The dispute before the Division Bench therefore involved a conflict between the appellants’ claim that their category should be frozen on the date of advertisement and the authorities’ obligation to implement the Supreme Court’s subsequent directions before finalising the recruitment process.

Court’s Judgment:

The Patna High Court dismissed the intra-court appeal and upheld the decision to consider the appellants under the Extremely Backward Classes category. The Division Bench held that the consequences of the Supreme Court’s judgment in Dr. Bhim Rao Ambedkar Vichar Manch Bihar, Patna v. State of Bihar & Ors. governed the recruitment process, notwithstanding that Advertisement No. 10 of 2023 had been issued before the administrative implementation of the revised classification.

The Bench examined the effect of the Supreme Court’s decision and the subsequent steps taken by the Bihar Government and the Bihar Technical Service Commission. It found that the reclassification of the Tanti-Tantwa community was not an independent or arbitrary decision taken by the Commission. Rather, it was a consequence of the Supreme Court’s judgment setting aside the State Government’s 2015 resolution.

The Supreme Court’s ruling was central to the controversy. Through the resolution dated July 1, 2015, the Bihar Government had extended Scheduled Caste reservation benefits to members of the Tanti-Tantwa community. The Supreme Court subsequently set aside that resolution and directed that the affected Scheduled Caste-reserved posts be restored to the Scheduled Caste quota.

The Supreme Court also addressed the position of members of the community who had received benefits under the 2015 resolution. It directed that they could be accommodated under their original category of Extremely Backward Classes, with the State Government required to take appropriate measures to implement the directions.

The Patna High Court considered the legal effect of these directions and concluded that the Tanti-Tantwa community had to be treated as belonging to the EBC category for the purpose of the recruitment in question.

The Division Bench observed:

“…So, it follows that the effect of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Dr. Bhim Rao Ambedkar Vichar Manch Bihar, Patna (supra) is that ‘Tanti-Tantwa’ caste be treated as an Extremely Backward Class category. The appellants were considered, belonging to Extremely Backward Classes Category and their candidature was considered on the basis of the said caste.”

This observation formed the foundation of the Court’s conclusion. Once the Supreme Court had set aside the 2015 resolution, the appellants could not continue to claim Scheduled Caste reservation benefits solely because they had submitted their applications under that category before the selection process was completed.

The Bench also examined the administrative steps taken by the State Government to implement the Supreme Court’s decision. Following the judgment, the State issued a Gazette notification dated August 12, 2024. The Labour Resources Department subsequently communicated with the Bihar Technical Service Commission through letters dated September 4 and September 19, 2024, directing it to rectify the merit list.

The Commission’s communication dated October 15, 2024, requiring candidates to submit valid caste certificates, was also part of the implementation process. These measures demonstrated that the authorities had acted in response to the Supreme Court’s directions rather than independently changing the reservation classification applicable to the community.

The Court therefore found no reason to interfere with the Commission’s decision to assess the appellants under the EBC category.

An important aspect of the judgment concerned the appellants’ argument that the recruitment advertisement had been issued before the revised classification was implemented. The Bench did not accept that the earlier commencement of recruitment could prevent the authorities from complying with the Supreme Court’s judgment.

The relevant consideration was that the selection process had not been finalised when the authorities implemented the judicial directions. The appellants could not insist that the Commission continue applying a reservation classification that had lost its legal foundation merely because the recruitment exercise had commenced under the earlier administrative arrangement.

The Court’s reasoning reflects the principle that recruitment authorities are bound to comply with binding judicial decisions while undertaking selection. The existence of an ongoing recruitment process does not authorise a public authority to disregard a subsequent judgment of the Supreme Court that directly governs the legal status of a relevant category of candidates.

The appellants’ participation in the examination and their subsequent call for document verification did not establish an absolute right to be considered under the Scheduled Caste category. Those steps formed part of the selection process, but they did not prevent the authorities from applying the legally correct classification before the recruitment was completed.

The Court also took note of the Commission’s position that none of the appellants had secured the cut-off marks required for selection under the EBC category. Their candidature had been considered under the category to which the Tanti-Tantwa community belonged following the Supreme Court’s decision. Since they did not meet the applicable qualifying standard, they could not claim selection merely on the basis of their earlier consideration under the Scheduled Caste category.

The Bench further agreed with the reasoning adopted by the Single Judge, who had dismissed the original writ petition on August 11, 2025. The Single Judge had considered the effect of the Supreme Court’s judgment and the subsequent administrative measures and had concluded that the appellants were correctly treated as EBC candidates.

The Division Bench found no legal error in that conclusion. It expressly endorsed the Single Judge’s reasoning and observed:

“We are of the view that the learned Single Judge has rightly dismissed the petition as the issue which fell for consideration for treating the appellants belonging to Extremely Backward Class was pursuant to the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Dr. Bhim Rao Ambedkar Vichar Manch Bihar, Patna (supra). We hold that the learned Single Judge is justified in dismissing the writ petition in the manner, the learned Single Judge has held in paragraph Nos. 21 to 26 which we have reproduced above.”

By affirming the Single Judge’s decision, the Division Bench made clear that the recruitment authorities were justified in applying the EBC classification while preparing the merit list and assessing the appellants’ eligibility.

The judgment is significant because it clarifies that a candidate’s reservation claim cannot be considered independently of a binding judicial decision that alters or clarifies the legal basis of the relevant classification. Where a previous governmental resolution extending reservation benefits has been set aside by the Supreme Court, the authorities cannot continue applying that resolution merely because a recruitment process was initiated while it remained in operation.

At the same time, the ruling is confined to the particular circumstances before the Court. It does not establish that recruitment authorities may freely change reservation categories during every ongoing selection process. The decisive factor here was the existence of a specific Supreme Court judgment setting aside the 2015 resolution and directing the restoration of the Tanti-Tantwa community to its original EBC category.

The decision also highlights the distinction between participation in a selection process and an enforceable right to appointment. Appearing in an examination, being declared successful at an intermediate stage or receiving a document-verification call does not necessarily guarantee appointment. Candidates remain subject to the applicable eligibility requirements and any binding legal directions governing the recruitment before its completion.

The Court did not accept the appellants’ contention that the date of the advertisement alone determined the reservation category applicable throughout the selection process. Instead, it upheld the authorities’ obligation to give effect to the Supreme Court’s ruling while finalising the recruitment.

Accordingly, the Patna High Court dismissed the intra-court appeal and declined to interfere with the decision to consider the appellants under the EBC category. The decision of the Single Judge was upheld, and the appellants’ claim to Scheduled Caste reservation benefits in the recruitment under Advertisement No. 10 of 2023 was rejected.

The judgment reinforces the binding nature of Supreme Court directions and the responsibility of recruitment authorities to implement them, even where the consequences affect an ongoing selection process. It also confirms that candidates cannot claim continuation of a reservation benefit after the legal basis for that benefit has been set aside by a competent court.