Christian Members Of OBC Communities Not Entitled To Reservation Unless Specifically Included In State OBC List: Bombay High Court At Goa

The Bombay High Court at Goa recently held that Christian members of a community listed the Goa State OBC list are not entitled to reservation benefits unless the state government specifically notifies the Christian members of the community to be included in the OBC list.

A division bench of Justice MS Sonak and Justice Bharat P Deshpande set aside the caste certificate of a Zilla Panchayat member observing that the notification for including Mesta community in the state OBC list does not include “Christian Mesta”, to which he belongs.

“the benefits of reservation are available inter alia to those classes included in the State OBC list vide notification issued by the Government from time to time. Regards some of the classes, the State Government has positively and clearly specified that they would include a Christian counterpart. Regards others, there is no such specification in positive terms. By invoking Article 14 or 16, the Christian counterpart not intended to be included cannot be included in the State OBC's list”, the court held.

The court allowed a writ petition filed by one Uday Chari, a 55-year-old resident of Panaji, Goa, challenging the validity of a caste certificate issued on March 5, 2020, by the Deputy Collector of Salcete, Goa.

The certificate was issued to Hanzel Feleciano Fernandes, an elected ZP member from a constituency reserved for individuals belonging to Other Backward Class (OBC). The caste certificate was issued under a government notification dated December 29, 2006, including certain communities in state OBC list. On Chari’s complaint, the Caste Scrutiny Committee (CSC) upheld the certificate. Hence, he approached the High Court.

Advocate Vithal Naik for Chari contended that the notification only listed Vishwakarma/Chari/Mesta in the State list of OBC communities, without explicitly including Christian Vishwakarma/Chari/Mesta. He argued that the absence of specific mention of Christian inclusion indicated that the certificate was illegal and void.

Advocate JA Lobo for Fernandes argued that the notification did not specifically exclude Christian Vishwakarma/Chari/Mesta. He emphasized that any such exclusion, if it were based solely on religious grounds, would be inherently arbitrary and in violation of the constitution.

The court relied on several cases and emphasized that only the legislature can amend notifications related to caste-based classifications, and that the Court's role is to interpret these notifications. The court highlighted that it cannot declare synonyms or equivalents of SC, ST, or OBC classes.

The vigilance cell's report provided that Fernandes belongs to the Mesta community. The court observed that the specific inclusion of Christian counterparts was a consistent practice in similar notifications and noted that the notification in question did not include Christian Vishwakarma/Chari/Mesta. It emphasized that the Deputy Collector and Caste Scrutiny Committee (CSC) did not possess the authority to add classes to notifications or State lists. The court held that the CSC’s judgment upholding the caste certificate is “ultra vires and amounts to adding to the list of OBCs in the Government notification dated 29.12.2006.”

The court also noted that it has made two orders for expeditious disposal of Chari’s complaint before the CSC. The court It criticized the vigilance cell's delay in submitting proper reports, which resulted in the ZP member, Fernandes, continuing to serve in office based on the contested caste certificate.

“the vigilance cell initially delayed submitting its report and compounded this delay by submitting a report deviating from the prescribed format. As a result of this delay, Respondent No.6 continued as a ZP member even though he should not have. This delay, therefore, facilitated the continuance of Respondent No.6 as a ZP member even though we are now satisfied that he was not included in the Government notification dated 29.12.2006”, the court observed.

The court declared the caste certificate issued to Fernandes as void ab initio. The court set aside the impugned judgment of the Caste Scrutiny Committee held that the inclusion of Christian Vishwakarma/Chari/Mesta was not supported by the notification dated December 29, 2006.

Case no. – Writ Petition No. 494 of 2023

Case title – Uday Chari v. State of Goa and Ors.

Click Here To Read/Download Judgment