IMPORTANT POINTS
A member of Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes in his original State, will not be entitled to the benefits of reservation in the migrated State/Union Territory.
When Presidential Orders of Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes are notified for various Union Territories including Union Territory of Delhi, extending PAN India reservation to the employment falling under the services of Union Territories including Union Territory of Delhi, will be against the Constitutional scheme and the law laid down.
PAN India reservation for Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes is necessary for recruitment conducted by UPSC. Not so for Group ‘B’ and Group ‘C’ posts falling under services of Union Territories including Union Territory of Delhi for which recruitment is conducted by the respective Union Territories.

Headnote:Per Ranjan Gogoi, J. (majority opinion)
       (a) Constitution of India – Articles 341 and 342 – Presidential Order – Enumeration of SC/ST – Territory/State specific – Constitution (Scheduled Castes) Order, 1950 and Constitution (Scheduled Tribes) Order, 1950 – Recognition after elaborate enquiries – Disadvantages in one State may be absent in another State – Benefits of reservation in relation to the States/Union Territories available only to castes, races or tribes as mentioned in the Presidential Orders. (Para 17, 18, 20)
       (2006) 8 SCC 212; AIR 1965 SC 1557 – Referred
       (b) Constitution of India – Articles 341 and 342 – Status of SC/ST – Not universal throughout India – if the benefits available to a caste in one State is conferred throughout India, the words "in relation to that State" in Presidential Orders would become nugatory and mandate of Article 341/342 would get compromised – Held, a person belonging to a Scheduled Caste in one State cannot be deemed to be a Scheduled Caste person in relation to any other State to which he migrates for the purpose of employment or education. (Para 25, 28, 30)
       (2001) 6 SCC 571; (1990) 3 SCC 130; (1994) 5 SCC 244; (2009) 15 SCC 458 – Relied upon
       (2005) 3 SCC 1 – Referred
       (c) Constitution of India – Article 16(4) – Enabling provision – Reservation – To be provided on basis of quantifiable data indicating the adequacy or inadequacy of the representation of such classes – The data being verifiable, open to judicial scrutiny. (Para 33)
       (d) Interpretation of statute – Interrelated statutory as well as constitutional provisions – Should be harmoniously construed and understood. (Para 34, 61)
       (e) Constitution of India – Articles 341, 342 and 16(4) – Article 16(4), an enabling provision – Held, reservations under Article 16(4) could be provided only to classes or categories of Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes enumerated in the Presidential orders for a particular State/Union Territory within the geographical area of that State and not beyond. (Para 34)
       (f) Constitution of India – Part XIV, Articles 341, 342 – Reservation in NCT of Delhi – Pan Indian Reservation Rule in force – Held, in accord with the constitutional scheme relating to services under the Union and the States/Union Territories. (Para 61)
       (1980) 2 SCC 768 – Referred
       Per R. Banumathi, J. (partly dissenting)
       (g) Constitution of India – Article 367 – Definition of State under General Clauses Act, 1897 – applicable to interpretation of Constitution. (Para 5)
       (h) Constitution of India – Article 338, 341 and 342 – Notification of SC and ST – Only the President can notify and such notification shall be final – Such notification shall not be varied by any subsequent notification. (Para 8)
       (1994) 5 SCC 244 – Relied upon
       (i) Constitution of India – Article 338, 341 and 342 – Presidential Order – Recognition of SC/ST – State specific and territory specific within the state. (Para 9)
       AIR 1965 SC 1557 – Relied upon
       (j) Constitution of India – Articles 16(4), 341 and 342 – Articles 16(4) only an enabling provision to provide reservation to backward classes – Cannot be made applicable for grant of benefit of reservation for Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes in a State or Union Territory, who have migrated to another State or Union Territory and they are not members of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes in the State to which they have migrated – Presidential Orders made under Article 341 and Article 342 have an overriding status. (Para 14)
       (k) Constitution of India – Article 16(4) – Speaks of one type of reservation namely reservation of appointments/posts – Provision directed towards achieving equality of opportunity in services under State – Article 14 is the genus while Article 16 is the species – Aimed at 'protective equality' – Article 16(4) is not an exception but a facet of Article 14. (Para 15, 16, 17, 18)
       (1974) 4 SCC 3; (1992) Supp 3 SCC 217; (1996) 11 SCC 742 – Relied upon
       (l) Constitution of India – Articles 341 and 342 – Notification of SC/ST must be done in terms of Articles 341 and 342 – Notification of any scheduled caste or tribe cannot be made for the whole country – Expression “in relation to that State” in Presidential Orders – President can specify castes, races or tribes or parts thereof in relation not only to the entire State but in relation to the parts of the State – Neither the State legislature nor the courts can vary the list in Presidential Orders – Held, a SC/ST person who has migrated from the State of origin to some other State will not be entitled to derive benefits from the State to which he has migrated. (Para 23, 24, 25, 28)
       (1990) 3 SCC 130; (1994) 5 SCC 244; (2009) 15 SCC 458; (2001) 1 SCC 4 – Relied upon
       (1976) 2 SCC 310 – Referred
       (m) Constitution of India – Article 239 – Union territories – Though governed by the President through Administrator – Do not become merged with Central Government – Held, Each of the Union Territories would be bound by their respective Presidential Order of Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes for giving benefit of reservation to Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes in employment (Para 36, 38, 42, 44)
       (2009) 15 SCC 458; (1997) 7 SCC 339; AIR 1954 SC 587; (2004) 1 SCC 530; (2002) 1 SCC 344; (2014) 9 SCC 236 – Relied upon
       (2005) 3 SCC 1 – Not a correct view
       (2004) 1 SCC 530 – Dissented from
       (n) Constitution of India – Articles 341 and 342 – Recognition of caste as SC/ST – Union Territories – Pan India recognition and reservation of SC/ST for union Territories – Presidential Order recognizes SC/ST for each union Territory – Union territories are bound by the list applicable to respective UT – Held, merely because members of Delhi Administrative Subordinate Services are the feeder category for DANICS, PAN India reservation cannot be extended to Delhi Subordinate Services or to services under various Union Territories. (Para 57, 62, 64, 68)
       (2009) 15 SCC 458; (1990) 3 SCC 130; (1994) 5 SCC 244 – Relied upon
       (o) Constitution of India – Articles 16(4), 341 and 342 – Held, Article 16(4) has to yield to the mandate of Articles 341 and 342. (Para 74, 75)
       Facts of the case:
       A very important question of law as to interpretation of Articles 16(4), 341 and 342 arises for consideration in this appeal. Whether the Presidential Order issued under Article 341(1) or Article 342(1) of the Constitution has any bearing on the State’s action in making provision for the reservation of appointments or posts in favour of any Backward Class of citizens which, in the opinion of the State, is not adequately represented in the services under the State? The extent and nature of interplay and interaction among Articles 16(4), 341(1) and 342(1) of the Constitution is required to be resolved.
       Finding of the Court:
       A member of Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes in his original State, will not be entitled to the benefits of reservation in the migrated State/Union Territory.
       When Presidential Orders of Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes are notified for various Union Territories including Union Territory of Delhi, extending PAN India reservation to the employment falling under the services of Union Territories including Union Territory of Delhi, will be against the Constitutional scheme and the law laid down.
       PAN India reservation for Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes is necessary for recruitment conducted by UPSC. Not so for Group ‘B’ and Group ‘C’ posts falling under services of Union Territories including Union Territory of Delhi for which recruitment is conducted by the respective Union Territories.

JUDGMENT :

Ranjan Gogoi, J.

1. Leave granted in Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.36324 of 2017.

2. In State of Uttaranchal vs. Sandeep Kumar Singh and others, (2010) 12 SCC 794 [Civil Appeal No.4494 of 2006) the following question arose for consideration of this Court:-

“Whether a person belonging to a Scheduled Caste in relation to a particular State would be entitled or not, to the benefits or concessions allowed to Scheduled Caste candidate in the matter of employment, in any other State?”

3. In the course of the deliberations that took place this Court noticed the Constitution Bench judgments of this Court in Marri Chandra Shekhar Rao vs. Dean, Seth G.S. Medical College and others, (1990) 3 SCC 130 and Action Committee on Issue of Caste Certificate to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes in the State of Maharashtra and another vs. Union of India and another, (1994) 5 SCC 244. The view of a three Judge Bench of this Court in S. Pushpa and others vs. Sivachanmugavelu and others, (2005) 3 SCC 1 was also noticed and the same was perceived to be somewhat contrary to the view expressed by the Constitution Bench in the above two cases. This Court also took note of the fact that a two judge Bench of this Court in Subhash Chandra and another vs. Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board and others, (2009) 15 SCC 458 held that the dicta in S. Pushpa (supra) is an obiter and does not lay down any binding ratio. The Bench hearing the case i.e. State of Uttaranchal vs. Sandeep Kumar Singh and others (supra) took the view that “it was not open to a two judge Bench to say that the decision of a three judge Bench rendered following the Constitution Bench judgments to be per incuriam”. In this regard, the canons of judicial discipline carved out by this Court in Central Board of Dawoodi Bohra Community and another vs. State of Maharashtra and another, (2005) 2 SCC 673 were recalled and eventually in paragraph 13 of the opinion rendered in State of Uttaranchal vs. Sandeep Kumar Singh and others (supra) the reference of the question noted below was made to a larger Bench:-

“13. A very important question of law as to interpretation of Articles 16(4), 341 and 342 arises for consideration in this appeal. Whether the Presidential Order issued under Article 341(1) or Article 342(1) of the Constitution has any bearing on the State’s action in making provision for the reservation of appointments or posts in favour of any Backward Class of citizens which, in the opinion of the State, is not adequately represented in the services under the State? The extent and nature of interplay and interaction among Articles 16(4), 341(1) and 342(1) of the Constitution is required to be resolved.”

4. The said Civil Appeal No.4494 of 2006 (State of Uttaranchal vs. Sandeep Kumar Singh and others) was disposed of by the larger Bench of this Court by order dated 6th August, 2014, in the light of the findings of the High Court recorded in paragraph 4 of the High Court order to the effect that the order impugned suffers from an apparent illegality as the appointing authority of the petitioner therein is the University and the University had acted at the dictate of the State Government, which has no power to ask for cancellation of an appointment made in accordance with the advertisement. In the aforesaid order dated 6th August, 2014 this Court took the view that the conclusions recorded in paragraph 4 of the High Court order cannot be said to be legally flawed and accordingly closed the said Civil Appeal (No. 4494 of 2006) on the aforesaid basis. The question referred was not answered.

5. However, the question arising and referred to in the State of Uttaranchal vs. Sandeep Kumar Singh and others (supra) was felt to be surviving and subsisting in the present appeals also. Accordingly, by an order of the Court dated 7th August, 2014, the very same question as formulated in

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2018 Supreme(SC) 857

Cases Referred (21)