Patna Court Rejects SC Reservation Claim for Tanti-Tantwa Group

According to LiveLaw, the Patna High Court has dismissed an appeal by candidates from the Tanti-Tantwa community, confirming that they must be classified under the Extremely Backward Classes (EBC) quota rather than the Scheduled Caste (SC) category. A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice V. Kameswar Rao and Justice Partha Sarthy ruled that the reclassification was mandatory to comply with a Supreme Court judgment that had previously invalidated the Bihar government's 2015 resolution extending SC benefits to the group.

The appellants had applied for Trade Instructor positions under Advertisement No. 10 of 2023, claiming SC reservation benefits. They submitted caste certificates, passed the examination, and were declared successful. However, during document verification, their eligibility was reassessed in light of the apex court's ruling in the case involving the Dr. Bhim Rao Ambedkar Vichar Manch. The Supreme Court had directed that SC-reserved posts extended to this community be returned to the general SC quota and that members be accommodated under their original EBC category.

In compliance with the Supreme Court’s directive, the Bihar government issued a gazette notification on August 12, 2024. The Labour Resources Department subsequently instructed the Bihar Technical Service Commission (BTSC) to rectify the merit list. The BTSC issued communications on September 4, September 19, and October 15, 2024, requiring candidates to submit valid caste certificates for reservation consideration. Consequently, the appellants were evaluated under the EBC category. They failed to secure the cut-off marks required for EBC candidates and were not selected.

The candidates argued that their reservation category should be determined by the status prevailing when the advertisement was issued or applications were submitted, contending that subsequent changes should not apply retrospectively. The Commission maintained that the reclassification was necessary to obey the Supreme Court’s judgment and that the recruitment process had not been finalized. The Single Judge had previously dismissed their writ petition on August 11, 2025, a decision the Division Bench upheld. The court observed that the Supreme Court’s ruling governed the recruitment process, and the appellants’ candidature was correctly considered under the EBC category. The bench declined to interfere with the dismissal of the writ petition, noting that none of the appellants met the qualifying marks for their reclassified category.