The main legal point established in the judgment is the significance of residence and migration in determining eligibility for reservation benefits, as per the constitutional provisions and relevant Supreme Court decisions.

V. Ramasubramanian, J.

1. These Review Applications are filed by the third parties seeking review of the order passed by this Court in a writ petition filed by the first respondent herein.

2. We have heard Mr.V.Raghavachari and Mr.L.S.M.Hassan Faizal, learned counsel for the applicants/third-parties, Mr.J.Kumaran, first respondent appearing in person, Mr.T.Murugesan, learned Senior Counsel and Government Pleader of Pondicherry, Mr.V.Ayyadurai, learned counsel appearing for the High Court, Mr.K.S.Ilangovan, learned counsel appearing for the Puducherry Bar Association and Ms.C.N.G.Niraimathi, learned counsel appearing for the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission.

3. A notification for recruitment to 8 posts of Civil Judges in the Puducherry Judicial Service was issued on 23.11.2014. Out of the 8 posts, 1 was reserved for Scheduled Castes, 2 for other Backward Classes and 5 were unreserved. Paragraph 2 of the notification stated that the reservation of posts for Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes/Other Backward Classes shall be in accordance with the orders issued by the Central Government from time to time.

4. The recruitment comprised of a two tier selection process, the first comprising of a written examination in four papers namely (1) Translation (2) Law Paper-I, (3) Law Paper-II and (4) Law Paper-III conducted on 17th and 18th of January, 2015 and the second comprising of a viva voce. As per the notification read with the Schedule to the Puducherry Judicial Services (Cadre and Recruitment) Rules, candidates belonging to the Scheduled Castes were required to secure a minimum of 30% marks, candidates belonging to the Backward Classes were required to secure a minimum of 35% marks and the general category candidates were required to secure a minimum of 40% marks in each of the four papers to qualify for the viva voce. The written examinations were scheduled to be held in two centers namely Chennai and Puducherry.

5. Within a month of the publication of the notification, but before the date of the written examinations, the first respondent herein who is a practicing advocate, came up with a writ petition in W.P.No.34971 of 2014, praying for the issue of a declaration that candidates having residence at Puducherry Region alone are entitled to the benefits of reservation and to direct the High Court not to grant the benefit of reservation to persons who are not the residents of Puducherry.

6. The writ petition was allowed by the Bench by an order dated 23.1.2015, on the basis of the ratio laid down by the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in Marri Chandra Shekhar Rao vs. Dean, Seth G.S.Medical College [(1990) 3 SCC 130] and the decision of a two member Bench in Subhash Chandra vs. Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board [(2009) 15 SCC 448]. It was held by the Bench that candidates belonging to the Backward Classes and Scheduled Castes who are not the residents of Puducherry, can be treated only as general category candidates in view of the Presidential Order issued in 1964.

7. Aggrieved by the said decision, two advocates who had taken part in the selection and who were treated as general category candidates, have come up with the above Review Applications. The main grounds on which the applicants seek review of the order are:-

(i) that the first respondent herein obtained an order without even impleading the candidates like the applicants; and

(ii) that the decision of the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in Marri Chandra Shekhar Rao was clarified by a three member Bench of the Supreme Court in Pushpa vs. Sivachanmugavelu [(2004) 3 SCC 132] and that Supreme Court held in State of Uttaranchal vs. Sandeep Kumar [(2010) 12 SCC 794 that the observations in Subhash Chandra, nullifying the effect of the decision in Pushpa were not correct.

8. We have carefully considered the above submissions.

9. The first ground on which the applicants seek review of the order in question is that necessary parties namely those hailing