When a Person Migrates, He/She does not carry the Special Privileges granted to him: Allahabad HC [Read Judgment]
The Allahabad High Court in a special Appeal has very categorically held that appellant is not entitled to the grant of status as a Scheduled Tribe candidate in the State of Uttar Pradesh on the basis that he belongs to the Meena tribe which is designated as a Scheduled Tribe in the State of his origin, namely in the State of Rajasthan.
The Present Appeal was preferred from an order of Single Judge Bench of the Court. In the present case appellant was admitted in 2006-07 to the MBBS degree course at Safai Medical College on a seat reserved for the Scheduled Tribes. The appellant claims to belong to the Scheduled Tribe of Meena. Though, the aforesaid tribe has been designated as a Scheduled Tribe in relation to the State of Rajasthan but not in the State of Uttar Pradesh and therefore, the appellant was rejected admission in U.P. Post Graduate Medical Education Examination seat reserved for Scheduled Tribes, on the ground that he did not belong to the designated Schedule Tribe of the State of U.P.
Speaking for the court and reiterating the decision of Supreme Court in Marri Chandra Shekhar Rao vs. Dean, Seth G.S. Medical College and Ors, CJ Chandrachud said that, "...But when a Scheduled Caste or Tribe migrates, there is no inhibition in migrating but when he migrates, he does not and cannot carry any special rights or privileges attributed to him or granted to him in the original State specified for that State or area or part thereof. If that right is not given in the migrated State it does not interfere with his constitutional right of equality or of migration or of carrying on his trade, business or profession...The expression "in relation to that State" would become nugatory if in all States the special privileges or the rights granted to Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes are carried forward. It will also be inconsistent with the whole purpose of the scheme of reservation”
The Chief Justice thus decided that a person who belongs to a Scheduled Tribe in the State of Rajasthan cannot claim the benefit of belonging to a Scheduled Tribe in the State of Uttar Pradesh on the ground that he or she has migrated from the State of origin. The migration does not affect his or her Scheduled Tribe status in the State of origin but it does not bring to the State of Uttar Pradesh the benefits which are available to Scheduled Tribes exclusively in the State of origin.
The Counsel for the Petitioner relied for his relief on S. Pushpa and Ors vs. Sivachanmugavelu and Ors, whereunder migrant SC/ST candidates were held to be eligible for reserved posts in the administration of the Union Territory of Pondicherry.
The court rejected the argument advanced by the counsel for petitioner and held that, the decision in S. Pushpa was primarily founded on the position that the administration of the Union Territory, namely Pondicherry had consistently adopted reservation as applicable to the Central services in relation to reservation for SC/ST candidates in matters of appointment to posts within the Pondicherry administration and there was nothing inherently incorrect about such a policy. The words "in relation to that State" in Article 342 (1) have been construed in the two Constitution Bench judgments in Marri Chandra Shekhar Rao and in Action Committee on issue of Caste Certificate to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes in the State of Maharashtra and Anr. vs. Union of India and Anr. A person who belongs to a Scheduled Tribe in the State of Rajasthan cannot claim the benefit of belonging to a Scheduled Tribe in the State of Uttar Pradesh on the ground that he or she has migrated from the State of origin. The migration does not affect his or her Scheduled Tribe status in the State of origin but it does not bring to the State of Uttar Pradesh the benefits which are available to Scheduled Tribes exclusively in the State of origin.
Read the Judgment here.