[100% Reservation Based On Domicile] Cannot Be Mute Spectator To Illegal Actions Of State: Jharkhand HC Quashes 8,423 Govt. Teacher Appointments in 13 Scheduled Districts [Read Judgment]

The Jharkhand High Court on Monday struck down the appointments of 8,423 government primary school teachers from 13 Scheduled Districts of the state, asserting that a policy of 100% reservation in matters of employment violates the very essence of Fundamental Rights.The petitioners before the full bench of Justices H. C. Mishra, S. Chandrashekhar and Deepak Roshan were the aspirants for the post of Trained Graduate Teachers in various subjects in the Government Secondary schools, for which they underwent selection process, but could not be appointed in the schools situated in thirteen scheduled districts in the State, because they were not the residents of the scheduled districts. In the present set of writ applications, the constitutional validity of the notification and order issued by the State Government, dated 14.07.2016 was under challenge. By the said notification and order, it has been stated inter alia that in the 13 scheduled districts of the State, i.e., the districts of Sahebganj, Pakur, Dumka, Jamtara, Latehar, Ranchi, Khunti, Gumla, Lohardaga, Simdega, East Singhbhum, West Singhbhum and Seraikella-Kharsawan, only the local residents of the concerned scheduled districts shall be eligible for appointment on the District Cadre Class-III and Class-IV posts for a period of ten years from the date of issuance of the notification.Heavy reliance was placed on the April 2020 verdict of a five-judge bench of the Supreme Court in Chebrolu L. Prasad's case, here it was held that 100 per cent reservation of teachers belonging to the Scheduled Tribe category at schools situated in "Scheduled Ares" is constitutionally invalid.The Constitution bench led by Justice Arun Mishra quashed the Government order issued under the hand of Governor of State of Andhra Pradesh which had affirmed absolute reservation for ST teachers and imposed costs on both Andhra Pradesh & Telangana Government's, seeking reasons from the Government's for breaching the 50% ceiling in reservations. The Court has also reiterated the Indira Sawnhey Judgement, according to which Reservations are constitutionally valid if they do not go beyond 50%.The issue had reached the Apex Court after an appeal was filed against the Andhra Pradesh High Court Order that had upheld the Government Order providing for the aforementioned cent per cent reservation.The court had, however, interpreted the judgement prospectively and not "retrospectively" and held that the existing appointments made in excess of the 50 per cent reservation shall survive but shall cease to be effective in the future, thereby providing a relief to those who had already been appointed basis the said government order.On a plain reading of the impugned notification and order, the High Court bench found that the Governor of Jharkhand has directed that the provisions regarding "eligibility of the appointment" mentioned in the various appointment rules as framed by the State Government under Article 309 of the Constitution of India, for the appointment to district cadre posts shall be deemed to be modified to the extent that cent-percent Class-III and Class-IV posts in various department in the 13 scheduled districts have been reserved for the residents of the concerned districts only. By the notification only the service rules framed under Article 309 of the Constitution of India have been sought to be modified, and even the list attached to the notification does not contain any Act of the Parliament or of the State Legislature. The bench noted that it is held by the Apex Court in Chebrolu Leela Prasad Rao's case, that the rules framed under Article 309 of the Constitution of India are neither the law enacted by the Parliament nor by the State Legislature. Further, the top court clearly and specifically held that in garb of the non-obstante clause in paragraph 5(1) of the Fifth Schedule, such power cannot be exercised by the Governor of the State overriding the fundamental rights of the citizens guaranteed under Part-III of the Constitution."We are also bound by the conclusion of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Chebrolu Leela Prasad Rao's case, that the Governor in exercise of powers under Paragraph 5(1) Schedule V of the Constitution, can exercise the powers concerning any particular Act of the Parliament or the Legislature of the State, directing that such law shall not apply to the scheduled areas or any part thereof, or shall apply subject to any exceptions and modifications, but by that, a new law cannot be framed by the Governor of the State. It has been made clear by the Apex Court that the area reserved for the Governor under the provisions of paragraph 5(1) Schedule V of the Constitution is prescribed. He cannot act beyond its purview and has to exercise his power within the four corners of the provision."We also find that by the impugned notification issued by the Governor of the State, 100% reservation has been provided in favour of the residents of the scheduled districts, totally ...

[100% Reservation Based On Domicile] Cannot Be Mute Spectator To Illegal Actions Of State: Jharkhand HC Quashes 8,423 Govt. Teacher Appointments in 13 Scheduled Districts [Read Judgment]

Mehal Jain

Tags