2005 Supreme(SC) 240

2005(2) Supreme 116
Supreme Court of India
(From Central Administrative Tribunal, Madras)
R.C. Lahoti, CJI, K.G. Balakrishnan & G.P. Mathur, JJ.
S. Pushpa & Ors. —Appellants
versus
Sivachanmugavelu & Ors. —Respondents
Civil Appeal Nos. 6-7 of 1998
With
Civil Appeal Nos. 4-5 of 1998
Decided on 11-2-2005
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellant in C.A.Nos. 6-7/98 : V. Balachandran, Advocate.
For the Appellant in C.A.Nos. 4-5/98 : V.R. Reddy, Sr. Advocate, V.G. Pragasam, Advocate.
For the Respondents : M.N. Rao, Sr. Advocate, M.A. Chinnaswamy, Advocate.
For the Applicant in I.A.Nos. 9-10 in C.A.Nos. 4-5/98 : K.V. Vishwanathan, K.V. Venkataraman, B. Ragunath and K.V. Vijayakumar, Advocates.

Important pointSelection made of migrant Scheduled Caste candidates against the quota reserved for Scheduled Castes on the post of Selection grade Teachers in the Union territory of Pondicherry cannot be held to be contrary to any provision of law.

Headnote:(i) Constitution of India—Articles 341, 239 to 241—Union Territory of Pondicherry under Government of Union Territories Act, 1963—Constitution (Pondicherry) Scheduled Castes Order 1964—Para 2—Reservations for Scheduled Caste candidates—Government of Pondicherry issued an advertisement for making recruitment of 350 General Central Service Grade ‘C’ posts of Secondary Grade Teachers—56 posts were reserved for Scheduled Caste candidates—Selection made of migrant Scheduled Caste candidates against the quota reserved for Scheduled Castes—Challenged as illegal and invalid—Government of Pondicherry has throughout been proceeding on basis that being a Union territory, all orders regarding reservation from SC/ST in respect of posts/services under the Central Government are applicable to posts/services under the Pondicherry Administration as well—Right from ­inception, this policy is being consistently followed by Pondicherry administration whereunder migrant SC/ST candidates are held to be eligible for reserved posts in Pondicherry administration—There is nothing inherently wrong or any infraction of any constitutional provision in such a policy—Tribunal erred in setting aside the selection and appointment of migrant SC candidates—Selection made cannot be held to be suffering from any legal ­infirmity.

       Held : The Central Government has issued several orders and circulars extending the benefit to SC candidates of other States in the matter of employment in the U.T. of Pondicherry which need to be noticed. (Para 15)

       These documents show that Government of Pondicherry has throughout been proceeding on the basis that being a Union territory, all orders regarding reservation for SC/ST in respect of posts/services under the Central Government are applicable to posts/services under the Pondicherry administration as well. Since all SC/ST candidates which have been recognized as such under the orders issued by the President from time to time irrespective of the State/Union territory, in relation to which particular castes or tribes have been recognized as SCs/STs are eligible for reserved posts/services under the Central Government, they are also eligible for reserved posts/services under the Pondicherry administration. Consequently, all SC/ST candidates from outside the U.T. of Pondicherry would also be eligible for posts reserved for SC/ST candidates in Pondicherry administration. Therefore, right from the inception, this policy is being consistently followed by the Pondicherry administration whereunder migrant SC/ST candidates are held to be eligible for reserved posts in Pondicherry administration. We do not find anything inherently wrong or any infraction of any constitutional provision in such a policy. The principle enunciated in Marri Chandra Shekhar Rao (supra) cannot have application here as U.T. of Pondicherry is not a State. As shown above, a Union territory is administered by the President through an administrator appointed by him. In the context of Article 246, Union territories are excluded from the ambit of expression “State” occurring therein. (Paras 16 and 17)

       The U.T. of Pondicherry having consistently followed the policy of the Central Government where all scheduled caste candidates were given benefit of reservation, the selection made following the said policy could not be held to be suffering from any legal infirmity on the principle laid down in Marri Chandra Shekhar Rao (Para 18)

       There would be no infraction of clause (4) of Article 16 if a Union territory by virtue of its peculiar position being governed by the President as laid down in Article 239 extends the benefit of reservation even to such migrant Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes who are not mentioned in the schedule to the Presidential Order issued for such Union territory. The U.T. of Pondicherry having adopted a policy of Central Government whereunder all Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes, irrespective of their State are eligible for posts which are reserved for SC/ST candidates, no legal infirmity can be ascribed to such a policy and the same cannot be held to be contrary to any provision of law. (Para 21)

        We are of the opinion that there has been no violation of any constitutional or any other legal provision in making selection and appointment of migrant Scheduled Caste candidates against the quota reserved for Scheduled Castes on the post of Selection Grade Teachers. The view to the contrary taken by the Tribunal cannot, therefore, be sustained and has to be set aside. (Para 22)

       (ii) Constitution of India—Articles 16(4), 341, 342—Reservations for SC/ST in the matter of appointments—Article 16(4) confers no constitutional right upon the members of the backward classes to claim reservation—Article 16(4) is not controlled by a Presidential Order issued under Article 341(1) or 342(1) of the Constitution.

       Held : Clauses (1) and (2) of Article 16 guarantee equality of opportunity to all citizens in the matter of appointment to any office or of any other employment under the State. Clauses (3) to (5), however, lay down several exceptions to the above rule of equal opportunity. Article 16(4) is an enabling provision and confers a discretionary power on the State to make reservation in the matter of appointments in favour of “backward classes of citizens” which in its opinion are not adequately represented either numerically or qualitatively in services of the State. But it confers no constitutional right upon the members of the backward classes to claim reservation. Article 16(4) is not controlled by a Presidential Order issued under Article 341(1) or Article 342(1) of the Constitution in the sense that reservation in the matter of appointment on posts may be made in a State or Union territory only for such Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes which are mentioned in the schedule appended to the Presidential Order for that particular State or Union territory. This Article does not say that only such Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes which are mentioned in the Presidential Order issued for a particular State alone would be recognized as backward classes of citizens and none else. If a State or Union territory makes a provision whereunder the benefit of reservation is extended only to such Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes which are recognized as such, in relation to that State or Union territory then such a provision would be perfectly valid. (Para 21)