Parliament Must Provide Clarity On Reservation Benefits In Successor States After State Reorganization : Supreme Court

While deciding a dispute related to the reservation of an employee serving the State of Jharkhand after the bifurcation of the State of Bihar, the Supreme Court highlighted the need for the Parliament to provide clarity on the rights of individuals after state reorganization.The observations in this regard were made in a separate but concurring judgment written by Justice S Ravindra Bhat while sharing bench with Justices UU Lalit and PS Narasimha in the case Akhilesh Prasad V. Jharkhand Public Service Commission And Ors.Given that states' reorganizations occur as a consequence of political demands, or as an articulation of regional aspirations, there is no agency of the individual (that is, members of SC or ST communities) in such eventuality, said Justice Bhat. This situation is radically different, Justice Bhat said, from one, where a member of such community, voluntarily seeks opportunities outside her or his state in which case, the person cannot claim quota benefits in the state to which he/she migrates to (as per the Constitution bench decision of the Supreme Court Marri Chandra Shekhar Rao vs. Dean, Seth GS Medical College (1990))"There is, consequently, an obligation on the part of Parliament, to provide clarity about the kind of protection, regarding the status of such individuals forced to choose one among the newly reorganized states, and ensure that they are not worse off as a result of reorganization", Justice Bhat said.Justice Bhat added :"In my opinion, given that determination of whether a community or caste has to be notified as Scheduled Caste, or Tribe, is in relation to a state or union territory (i.e., it is primarily people-centric having regard to the existing geo-political unit), and when a determination is so made that a particular community belongs to such state, in the event of re-organization, then, Parliament has a duty to provide clarity, by way of express provision"."Furthermore, the duty to provide clarity and protection, generally speaking has to be consistent - i.e., in the case of one states' reorganization, the protection should not be greater than in the case of reorganization of another state. That would defeat the command of Articles 14 and 15 (1) (i.e., in the latter case, there can possibly be discrimination on the ground of place of birth). In my opinion, this duty stems from a co-joint reading of Part I (Articles 1 to 4), Articles 14, 15(1), 341, and 342 of the Constitution, and the overarching concern that the individual should not be worse off, due to disruption not of her or his making. The duty of Parliament in such cases, is a Constitutional obligation, to ensure that no one individual or group is disadvantaged".Factual Background On July 24, 1995, Bihar Public Service Commission recommended the name of Akhilesh Prasad ("appellant") under the Scheduled Tribe category for filling up the posts of Cooperative Development Officers. Claim that the appellant belonged to ST category (Gond) was supported by a Certificate and on November 10, 1995 an appointment letter was issued to the appellant. After reorganization of the States of Bihar and Jharkhand, the appellant's service was allocated to the successor State of Jharkhand and since then the appellant has been in the service of the State of Jharkhand. Pursuant to the letter issued by by the Principal Secretary, Government of Jharkhand to all the Secretaries of departments regarding reservation in promotion in various categories of services under the State of Jharkhand, the appellant's name was forwarded by the office of the Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Jharkhand to the Commission.Since the appellant was declared unsuccessful irrespective of securing 123.68 marks as against the cut-off at 113.70 for ST category in the examination which was conducted for filling up the posts of Deputy Collectors, he approached the High Court challenging his non selection. On September 22, 2017 the Single Judge directed JPSC to consider the appellant's case for appointment to the post of Deputy Collector as a Reserved category (scheduled tribe).The Division bench of the High Court however found that 25% of posts to be filled through the limited competitive examination would be by way of fresh appointment. The High Court further said that since there was no certificate issued by any of the competent authorities that he belonged to ST (Gond) category in the State of Jharkhand, the appellant could not be said to be belonging to the reserved category of STs for the purposes of limited departmental examination.Aggrieved, the Appellant approached the Top Court.Submission Of CounselsAppearing for the appellant, Advocate Manoj Kumar submitted that appellant having been in the service of the then undivided State of Bihar and his services having been allocated to State of Jharkhand, is entitled to the benefits and protection under Sections 72 and 73 of the Bihar Reorganization Act, 2000. It was also his contention that status as a person...

Parliament Must Provide Clarity On Reservation Benefits In Successor States After State Reorganization : Supreme Court

Shruti Kakkar

Tags