The benefit of reservation for Scheduled Caste and Schedule Tribe candidates does not extend to candidates upon their migration to another State, even if the caste of those migrating from one State to the other is recognized as a Scheduled Caste/Tribe in both the States.

ORDER :

This appeal arises out of a judgment and order dated 5th February, 2009 passed by a Division Bench of the High Court of judicature at Patna whereby C.W.J.C. No.6666 of 2008, filed by the present respondents no.4 and 5 challenging the appointment of the appellants as Civil Judges Junior Division in the Bihar Judicial Service, has been allowed and the appointment of the appellants set aside. The High Court has next directed the Bihar Public Service Commission to recommend the case of persons placed below the appellants in the merit list and belonging to the scheduled caste category for appointment against the vacancies occupied by the appellants. The High Court has further directed that the State Government shall on receipt of any such recommendation make the necessary appointment and that the persons so appointed shall earn their seniority but shall not be entitled to any emoluments for the past period. The High Court has ordered that if respondents no.4 and 5 (writ petitioner and the intervenor) are not placed immediately below the present appellants in the merit list, the Bihar Service Commission shall be at liberty to recommend the names of those who are so placed.

2. It is, in our opinion, unnecessary to set out in detail the factual matrix in which the controversy arises, partly because the order passed by the High Court has already done so and partly because the question that essentially falls for our determination stands concluded by the judgments of this Court in Marri Chandra Shekhar Rao v. Dean, Seth G.S. Medical College and others - (1990) 3 SCC 130 and Action Committee on Issue of Caste Certificate to Scheduled Castes and Schedules Tribes in the State of Maharashtra and Another v. Union of India and Another - (1994) 5 SCC 244. The effect of both these judgments which happen to be Constitution Bench pronouncements, was considered by a Division Bench of this Court in Melwin Chiras Kujur v. State of Maharashtra and Others, disposed of on 14th September, 2015, by a Two-Judge Bench of which one of us (Thakur, J.) was a member. The question in Melwin's case (supra) as in the case before us was whether a person belonging to any Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe in the State of his/her origin can claim the benefit of reservation upon his/her migration to another state. In Marri Chandra Shekhar Rao and Action Committee's cases (supra) this Court has answered the said question in the negative. In Melwin's case (supra) also while referring to the Constitution Bench pronouncements of this Court, this Court has reiterated that the benefit of reservation for Scheduled Caste and Schedule Tribe candidates, does not enure to candidates upon their migration to another State even in cases where the caste of those migrating from one State to the other is recognised as a Scheduled Caste/Tribe in both the States. In Melwin's case (supra) this Court observed:

"The legal position as rightly pointed out by learned counsel for the appellant has been firmly settled by the two decisions of the Constitution Bench referred to by us in the earlier paragraphs. Benefits of reservation are not available to those migrating from one State to the other even if such candidates belong to the same caste. That part of the controversy therefore stands concluded and does not require any further elaboration."

3. In the case at hand the High Court has held and in our opinion rightly so that the appellants who are originally from the State of Uttar Pradesh were not entitled to the benefit of reservation as Scheduled Caste candidates in the State of Bihar even when the caste to which they belong was found and recognised as a Schedule Caste in both the states. To that extent, therefore, the judgment of the High Court is legally unexceptionable and does not in our opinion call for any interference.

4. What was strenuously argued by Mr. Huzefa Ahmadi, learned senior counsel for the appellants, is that the appellants have served as Civil Judges (Junior Division) fo