High Court Of Delhi
URMILA GINDA - Appellant
Versus
UNION OF INDIA - Respondent
W.P.(C.) 682 of 1973
Decided On : 08/05/1974
CASTE BASED RESERVATION - MARRIAGE WITH SCHEDULED CASTE - ENTITLEMENT TO RESERVED POST - APPLICABILITY OF ARTICLE 15(4) OF THE CONSTITUTION - INTERPRETATION OF ARTICLE 15(4) - CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, 1950
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a high caste Hindu woman, married a Scheduled Caste man. She applied for a public office reserved for backward communities, Scheduled Castes, and Tribes. The petitioner was denied the reserved post on the ground that she was not a member of a Scheduled Caste.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the petitioner was not entitled to the reserved post because she was not a member of a Scheduled Caste. The court found that Article 15(4) of the Constitution, which permits the State to make special provisions for the advancement of socially and educationally backward classes, does not allow the State to make any special provision de hors Article 15. The court also found that the petitioner was not subject to any social or educational backwardness and that she could not take advantage of any special provision made by the State for the advancement of such classes of persons.
Issues: Whether the petitioner, a high caste Hindu woman who married a Scheduled Caste man, was entitled to a public office reserved for backward communities, Scheduled Castes, and Tribes.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the petitioner was not entitled to the reserved post because she was not a member of a Scheduled Caste. The court found that Article 15(4) of the Constitution, which permits the State to make special provisions for the advancement of socially and educationally backward classes, does not allow the State to make any special provision de hors Article 15. The court also found that the petitioner was not subject to any social or educational backwardness and that she could not take advantage of any special provision made by the State for the advancement of such classes of persons.
Final Decision: The petition was dismissed.
( 1 ) THE short but interesting question in this Writ Petition is whether the petitioner, who belongs to a high caste family (Malhotras of Punjab) and who married Fit. Ltd. C D. Ginda, who belongs to the Scheduled Caste (Adharmi community i. e. chamar ). is also entitled to be treated as a Scheduled Caste candidate in respect of a public office reserved for backward communities, Scheduled Castes and Tribes.
( 2 ) THE marriage is said to have taken place on 15th January, 1969 (this fact has not been stated in the petition, but Shri D. K,. Kapur, learoed counsel for the petitioner, states this from the bar and this fact has not been disputed. The petitioner graduated from the Delhi University and also passed the one year intensive. course in Russian from the Institute of Russian Studies, Jawaharlal Mehru University , New Delhi in the year 1966. When a post of Senior Russina-to-English Translator in the Ministry of Defence in the scale of Rs. 325-575 was advertised she applied for that post. She took a written test on the basis of which she was called for interview on 13th June. l972. She was, however, selected for the post of Junior Russian/baglish Translator in the scale of Rs. 125-350. She was placed as serial number two on the panel of selected candidates which consisted of two persons. The person who was Sr. No. 1 was appointed. When the petitioner made inquiries why she did not get the order of appointment she was tole that the post was reserved for a Scheduled Caste Giandidate and that being a member of the higher caste herself she could not be given that post merely of the ground of her marriage with a Schedule Caste.
( 3 ) THERE can be no doubt that the petitioner had become a Sapinda of her husband who belongs to the Scheduled Caste by virtue of her marriage. The distinction between Anuloma and Pratiloma marriages according to the traditional Hindu Law and the-difference of opinion that existed concerning whether the Pratiloma marriage was valid or not have lost their importance by reason of the Hindu Marriage Act; Section 4 prescribes that the provisions of this Act would apply notwithstanding any rule of Hindu Law or custom to the contrary; Section 5 permits any Hindu to marry another Hindu provided there is no disqualifying feature mentioned in that section, none of which is present in this case.
( 4 ) ON the question whether by reason of the petitioner becoming a Sapinda of her husband, by marriage, she can claim the benefit of being appointed to a post reserved for backward communities, Scheduled Castes and. Tribes there is no specific authority. By way of analogy adecision of the Supreme Court relating to an election to a seat reserved for Scheduled Tribes under the Representation of Peoples Act was referred to. A non-tribal lady had married a person belonging to the Munda tribe-a scheduled tribe-according to the tribes custom and she had also been, accepted by the tride as a member of that tribe by the elders of that tribe. The mere fact that the person who was so accepted as a member of the tribe was held sufficient to contest for a seat reserved for Scheduled Tribes. Grover, J. , speaking for the Supreme Court in N. E. Horo v. Smt. Jahan Ara Jaipal Singh, found that once the marriage of a Munda male with a aon-Munda female is approved or sanctioned by the Parha Panchayat she became a member of the conamunity and could contest for a reserved seat ; the lady had been assimilated in that community. The contention that a person could be a Munda by birth alone was rejected on the ground that no rigid custom of endogamy was established. Article 340 of the Constitution, employing the words tribal communities , in addition to tribes was given a libaral interpretation ; it was held to include even members of the Munda tribe by marriage and not by birth alone. This decision was given in the context of allowing representation to a Scheduled Tribe on the basis of the tribe having accepted one in its fold. T
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.