2003 Supreme(SC) 1159

2003(8) Supreme 559
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(From Bombay High Court)
V.N. Khare, CJI., S.B. Sinha & AR. Lakshmanan, JJ.
Sudhakar Vithal Kumbhare -Appellant
versus
State of Maharashtra & Ors. -Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 5186 of 2001
Decided on 18-11-2003
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellant : V.A. Mohta, Sr. Advocate, D.M. Nargolkar, Advocate.
For the Respondents : S.V. Deshpande, S.S. Shinde, Mukesh K. Giri, A.S. Bhasme, Advocates.

IMPORTANT POINT
Whether members of the Scheduled Tribe belonging to one region would continue to get same benefits despite bifurcation in terms of State s Reorganisation Act, employer is required to refer the question before the Scrutiny Committee.

Headnote:Constitution of India-Article 342- Habla" was recognised as Scheduled Tribe in District Chhindwara in State of Madhya Pradesh-In State reorganisation part of this District was included in State of Maharashtra and Caste Habla was recognised as Scheduled Tribe also in State of Maharashtra -Promotion of appellant as Assistant Engineer in Maharashtra State Electricity Board against a reserved vacancy on basis of certificate of being belonging to Halba tribe issued by Competent Authority of State of Madhya Pradesh was annulled and appellant was reverted-High Court dismissed writ holding that petitioner who came from State of M.P. was not entitled to benefit of reservation-Appeal-Whether members of the Scheduled Tribe belonging to one region would continue to get same benefits despite bifurcation thereof in terms of States Reorganisation Act?-In such a situation employer was required to refer the question before Scrutiny Committee-Appellant s case was not referred to appropriate Committee-Impugned judgment was liable to be set aside.

       Held : The question is as to whether the appellant being a Scheduled Tribe known as Halba/Halbi which stands recognized both in the State of Madhya Pradesh as well as in the State of Maharashtra having their origin in the Chhindwara region, a part of which, on States reorganization, has come to State of Maharashtra, was entitled to the benefit of reservation? It is one thing to say that the expression "in relation to that State" occurring in Article 342 of the Constitution of India should be given an effective or proper meaning so as to exclude the possibility that a tribe which has been included as a Scheduled Tribe in one State after consultation with the Governor for the purpose of the Constitution may not get the same benefit in other State whose Governor has not been consulted; but it is another thing to say that when an area dominated by members of the same tribe belonging to the same region which has been bifurcated, the members would not continue to get the same benefit when the said tribe is recognized in both the States. In other words, the question that is required to be posed and answered would be as to whether the members of the Scheduled Tribe belonging to one region would continue to get the same benefits despite bifurcation thereof in terms of States Reorganization Act. With a view to find out as to whether any particular area of the country was required to be given protection is a matter which requires detailed investigation having regard to the fact that both Pandhurna in the District of Chhindwara and the part of area of Chandrapur at one point of time belonged to the same region and under the Constitutional Scheduled Tribes Order 1950 as it originally stood the Tribe Halba/Halbi of that region may be given the same protection. In a case of this nature the degree of disadvantages of various elements which constitute the input for specification may not be totally different and the State of Maharashtra even after reorganization might have agreed for inclusion of the said Tribe Halba/Halbi as a Scheduled Tribe in the State of Maharashtra having regard to the said fact in mind. Here we find that the Maharashtra State Electricity Board acting upon the direction of the State Government has reverted the appellant without referring the matter to the Scrutiny Committee which was not the correct way to deal with the appellant s case. In fact, in such a situation the employer was required to refer the question before the Scrutiny Committee which admittedly had been constituted and established for coming to the matter. (Para 5)

       In view of fact that the appellant s case was not referred to the appropriate Committee, the judgment and order under challenge deserves to be set aside. It will be open to the Maharashtra State Electricity Board to refer the matter to the Scrutiny Committee for verifying the eligibility of the appellant. We direct that the appellant shall be reinstated forthwith as Assistant Engineer and shall continue to hold the said post till the matter is decided by the Committee. (Para 6)