Reservation Category Person Can't Claim Quota Benefits Simultaneously In Two Successor States : Supreme Court

The Supreme Court has held that a person who is entitled to the benefit of reservation in either of the State of Bihar or State of Jharkhand will not be entitled to claim benefit of reservation simultaneously in both the successor States.Allowing such simultaneous claim will defeat the mandate of Articles 341(1) and 342(1) of the Constitution, the Court observed. Those who are members of the reserved category and are resident of the successor State of Bihar, while participating in open selection in State of Jharkhand shall be treated to be migrants and it will be open to them to participate in general category without claiming the benefit of reservation and vice-versaA division bench comprising Justices UU Lalit and Ajay Rastogi held so while setting aside a judgment of the Jhakrhand High Court (Pankaj Kumar v. State of Jharkhand and others).The relevant observations from the judgment are as follows :"It is made clear that person is entitled to claim benefit of reservation in either of the successor State of Bihar or State of Jharkhand, but will not be entitled to claim benefit of reservation simultaneously in both the successor States and those who are members of the reserved category and are resident of the successor State of Bihar, while participating in open selection in State of Jharkhand shall be treated to be migrants and it will be open to participate in general category without claiming the benefit of reservation and vice-versa"."..we clarify that the person is entitled to claim the benefit of reservation in either of the successor State of Bihar or State of Jharkhand but would not be entitled to claim the privileges and benefits of reservation simultaneously in both the States and if that is permitted, it will defeat the mandate of Articles 341(1) and 342(1) of the Constitution".Background factsThe Court was dealing with two appeals. In one case, the appellant Pankaj Kumar was denied appointment in SC quota in the civil service exam in Jharkhand on the ground that his permanent address proof showed him as a resident of Patna, Bihar. It was his case that he was born and brought up in those areas of the erstwhile state of unified Bihar, which later became the part of Jharkhand. While a single bench of the High Court allowed his claim for appointment in SC quota in Jharkhand, the division bench set it aside in an appeal by the state.The other appeal was filed by persons whose appointment as constables under SC category in Jharkhand were terminated on the ground that the caste certificates produced by them showed them as residents of the State of Bihar.The appellants argued that they cannot be treated as migrants from Bihar to Jharkhand rather it was a case of they happening to be in the successor state after the bifurcation of the unified state. Since the President's order notifying Scheduled Castes for Jharkhand includes their castes as well, there was no rationale in excluding them, the appellants contended.Attorney General KK Venugopal submitted that the Ministry of Home Affairs issued a Government Order dated 22nd February, 1985 stating inter alia that persons belonging to the reserved category are entitled to claim benefits only within their home State and not in the State to which the incumbent has migrated and the Constitution Bench of this Court has further approved that one is entitled to claim benefit of reservation only in their home State and not in the State one has migrated.Analysis and reasoning by the Supreme CourtPresidential Order operates in relation to the stateThe Court noted that Articles 341(1) and Article 342(1) of the Constitution of India empowers the President to specify the race or tribes or part of groups within caste, race or tribes with respect to any State or Union Territory for the purpose of the Constitution deemed to be SC/ST in relation to that State or Union Territory, as the case may be"It is obvious that in specifying castes, race or tribes, the President has been authorised to limit notification to part of groups with the castes, etc. and that must mean that after examination of the disadvantages from which they have suffered and the social and economic backwardness, the President may specify castes/tribes etc. as parts thereof in relation to the entire State or in relation to parts of the State where he is satisfied that after examination of the disadvantages, social and educational hardship and backwardness of the race, caste or tribes justifies such specification", the judgment authored by Justice Rastogi stated."The consideration for specifying a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribes or Backward Classes in any given State depends on the nature and extent of the disadvantages and social and educational backwardness/hardships suffered by the members concerned of the class in the State specific but that may be absent in another State to which the person has...

Reservation Category Person Can't Claim Quota Benefits Simultaneously In Two Successor States : Supreme Court

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

The Court noted that the Presidential Order notifying SCs/STs operate "in relation to a State".

Tags