SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2006 Supreme(Del) 210

High Court Of Delhi
UOI - Appellant
Versus
B.R.AMBEDKAR MEMORIAL FUND - Respondent
Decided On : 02/01/2006

Union Territories can extend reservation benefits to migrant SC/STs not mentioned in the Schedule to the Presidential Order.

Headnote:

SC/ST Certificate - Migration to Union Territory - Validity of Notifications

Fact of the Case:

The case involved the entitlement of a person who obtained an SC/ST certificate from one state and migrated to the Union Territory of Delhi to the benefit of certain notifications.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the notifications were valid, citing the judgment of the Supreme Court in S. Pushpa and Others v. Sivachanmugavelu and Others, which established that a Union Territory can extend the benefit of reservation to migrant SC/STs not mentioned in the Schedule to the Presidential Order.

Issues: The key issue was whether a person migrating from one state to a Union Territory is entitled to the benefit of SC/ST notifications and the validity of the said notifications.

Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the legal principle established in the S. Pushpa and Others case, which allowed Union Territories to extend reservation benefits to migrant SC/STs not mentioned in the Schedule to the Presidential Order.

Final Decision: The court set aside the judgment of the Single Judge and upheld the validity of the notifications, allowing the appeal.

MARKANDEYA KATJU, C. J.

( 1 ) ALLOWED. LPA No. 802/2004

( 2 ) THIS writ appeal has been filed against the impugned judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 5. 7. 2004.

( 3 ) HEARD Counsel for the parties and perused the record.

( 4 ) THE facts in detail have been set out in the judgment of the learned Single judge and hence we are not repeating the same except where necessary.

( 5 ) THE short question in this case is that whether a person who has obtained an SC/st certificate from some State migrates to the Union Territory of Delhi is entitled to the benefit of the notifications dated 21. 8. 2003 and 27. 8. 2003 and whether those notifications are valid.

( 6 ) WHEN a person who gets an SC/st certificate from State a migrates to state b he no doubt will not get the benefit of the SC/st certificate from State a and he will have to obtain another SC/st certificate from State b . The legal position is, however, different when a person who has got an SC/st certificate from state A migrates to a Union Territory. This matter is now covered by the judgment of the Supreme Court in S. Pushpa and Others. v. Sivachanmugavelu and Others, II (2005) SLT 355= (2005) 3 SCC 1.

( 7 ) IN S. Pushpa and Others case (supra) the Supreme Court observed:"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 recognised as such in relation to that State or Union territory then such a provision would be perfectly valid. However, 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 UT of Pondicherry having adopted a policy of the Central Government whereunder all Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes, irrespective of their State are eligible for psots 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. "

( 8 ) FOLLOWING the said decision, we are of the opinion that the matter is now no longer res integra.

( 9 ) HENCE, we set aside the judgment of the learned Single Judge and uphold the validity of the notifications dated 21. 8. 2003 and 27. 8. 2003. The appeal is allowed. Appeal allowed.


.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top