Supreme Court of India
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.B. SINHA & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CYRIAC JOSEPH
Subhash Chandra & Others
Versus
Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board & Others
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 5092 OF 2009 (Arising out of SLP (C) No.24327 of 2005) WITH WRIT PETITION (C) NO.507 OF 2006
Decided on : 04-08-2009
[Paras 14, 18, 20, 21, 26, and 35 to 43 and 46]
B. Constitution of India, 1950, Articles 15 and 16 - Reservation – Claim for - Person belonging to Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe in relation to one State or UT – Migrated to other State - The 'caste' or tribe to which they belong are not recognized as a reserved community in the adopted state - Cannot claim the benefits of reservation on their migration from one state to another - Constitutional scheme seeks to identify the social and economic backwardness of people having regard to their State or Union Territory as a unit - Principle applies to the minorities as well.
[Para 25]
C. Constitution of India, 1950, Articles 15 and 16 – Reservation - Central and State Government competent to lay down a policy decision in regard to reservation in respect to their area of operation - Policy decision cannot have primacy over the constitutional scheme – Such policies cannot be allowed to have effect of infringing basic concept of reservation.
[Para 40]
D. Constitution of India, 1950, Articles 341 and 342 - Reservation - Central and State Government competent to lay down a policy decision in regard to reservation in respect to their area of operation - State and Union Territory are at par on the ground of administrative eligibility or in exercise of their administrative power.
[Para 40]
Judgment :-
S.B. Sinha, J.
1.1. Leave granted in SLP (C) No.24327 of 2005.
2.2. Interpretation and/ or application of the notifications and/or the circulars issued by the National Capital Territory of Delhi in terms of clause (1) of Article 341 of the Constitution of India is involved herein.
3. It arises out of a judgment and order dated 13.05.2005 passed by a Division Bench of the High Court of Delhi dismissing an appeal preferred from an order passed by a learned Single Judge of the said Court.
The writ petition was filed by the appellant society which is registered under the Societies Registration Act, with its objects amongst others `upliftment of Backwards, Scheduled Castes and others of Delhi in education, social and cultural fields and to apply for and get all kinds of facilitation and relaxation and for safeguarding their interest in Government jobs.
3.4. The background facts involving filing of this appeal are as follows :
The members of Scheduled Casts and Scheduled Tribes have an important place in our constitutional scheme. Article 341 of the Constitution empowers the President to specify the castes, races or tribes or part of or groups within castes, races or tribes with respect to any State or Union Territory for the purposes of the Constitution deemed to be Scheduled Castes in relation to that State or Union Territory as the case may be. Similar provision is contained in Article 342 of the Constitution of India with regard to the members of the Scheduled Tribes. Clause (2) of Article 341 which is relevant for our purpose reads as under :
"(2) Parliament may by law include in or exclude from the list of Scheduled Castes specified in a notification issued under clause (1) any caste, race or tribe or part of or group within any caste, race or tribe, but save as aforesaid a notification issued under the said clause shall not be varied by any subsequent notification."
1.5. Private respondents and/or their parents are migrants to Delhi. In their native places, they were declared to be the members of the Scheduled Castes.
2.6. Indisputably, the Ministry of Home Affairs issued a circular on or about 2.5.1975, in terms whereof the manner in which the claim of a person as being belonging to Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes is required to be verified was laid down. Such verification was to be made having regard to the Presidential order specifying the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes in relation to the concerned State.
In the matter of verification of the caste of migrants, it was laid down:
"1. General (Applications in all cases):-
Where a person claims to belong to a Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes by birth it could be verified:-
.(i) That the person and his parents actually belong to the community claimed.
.(ii) That this community includes in the Presidential Orders specifying the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes in relation to the concerned State.
(iii) That the person belongs to that State and to the area within that State in respect of which the community has been scheduled.
.(iv) If the person claims to be a Scheduled Caste, he should profess either the Hindu or the Sikh religion.
.(v) If the person claims to be a Scheduled Tribe, he may profess any religion.
2. Case of Migration:-
.(i) Where a person migrates from the portion of the State in respect of which his community is scheduled to another part of the same State in respect of which his community is not scheduled he will continue to be deemed to be a member of the Scheduled Caste or the Scheduled Tribe as the case may be in relation to that State.
.(ii) Where a person migrates from one State to another, he can claim to belong to a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe only in relation to the State to which he originally belonged and not in respect of the State to which he has migrated."
7. Yet again, by way of a clarification issued by the National Capital Territory of Delhi dated 22.3.1977, it was, inter alia, stated :
"2. As required under Art
Shree Surat Valsad Jilla K.M.G. Parishad vs. Union of India &ors. (2007) 5 SCC 360
Ashok Kumar Thakur v. Union of India & Ors. (2008) 6 SCC 1
State of Maharashtra vs. Kumari Tanuja (1999) 2 SCC 462
Ramdev Food Products Pvt. Ltd. v. Arvindbhai Rambhai Patel and Ors. (2006) 8 SCC 726
Punjab Water Supply and Sewerage Board
Indra Sawhney & ors. v. Union of India & ors. 1992 Supp. (3) SCC 212
Saurabh Chaudri & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors. (2003) 11 SCC 146
Mithu v. State of Punjab (1983) 2 SCC 277
Anuj Garg & Ors. v. Hotel Association of India & Ors. (2008) 3 SCC 1
United India Insurance Company Ltd. v. Ajay Sinha & Anr. (2008) 7 SCC 454
M. Nagaraj & Others v. Union of India & Others
Oriental Insurance Company Limited v. Mohd. Nasir and Another (2009) 6 SCC 280
India Cement Ltd. and Others v. State of Tamil Nadu and Others (1990) 1 SCC 12
Synthetics and Chemicals Ltd. and Others v. State of U.P. and Others (1990) 1 SCC 109
Central Board of Dawoodi Bohra Community & Anr. v. State of Maharashtra & Anr. (2005) 2 SCC 673
Union of India v. Raghubir Singh (1989) 2 SCC 754
Official Liquidator v. Dayanand & Ors. (2008) 10 SCC 1
Marri Chandra Shekhar Rao v. Dean
S.Pushpa & Ors. v. Sivachanmugavelu & Ors. (2005) 3 SCC 1
Union of India & Ors. v. Dudh Nath Prasad (2000) 2 SCC 20
S. Pushpa & ors. vs. Sivachanmugavelu & ors. (2005) 3 SCC 1
State of Maharashtra vs. Milind & ors. (2001) 1 SCC 4
E.V. Chinnaiah vs. State of A.P. & ors. (2005) 1 SCC 394
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.