9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2005 (2) TMI 849 - SC - Indian LawsReservation of seats in favour of SC/ST - Violation Of constitutional laws - Challenged the judgment and order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal - appointment of migrant Scheduled Caste candidates against the quota reserved for Scheduled Castes on the post of Selection Grade Teachers - Validity of selection process - benefit of reservation in the matter of employment in Pondicherry Government service - issuance of the notification in the year 1964 - HELD THAT - In order to ascertain the number of seats which have to be reserved for Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes in the House of the People or in the Legislative Assembly, it is absolutely essential to ascertain precisely the population of the Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes in the State or Union territory. A fortiori, for the purpose of identification, it becomes equally important to know who would be deemed to be Scheduled Caste in relation to that State or Union territory. This exercise has to be done strictly in accordance with the Presidential Order and a migrant Scheduled Caste of another State cannot be taken into consideration otherwise it may affect the number of seats which have to be reserved in the House of People or Legislative Assembly. Though, a migrant SC/ST person of another State may not be deemed to be so within the meaning of Art. 341 and 342 after migration to another State but it does not mean that he ceases to be an SC/ST altogether and becomes a member of forward caste. Clauses (1) and (2) of Article 16 guarantee equality of opportunity to all citizens in the matter of appointment to any office or of any other employment under the State. Clauses (3) to (5), however, lay down several exceptions to the above rule of equal opportunity. Article 16(4) is an enabling provision and confers a discretionary power on the State to make reservation in the matter of appointments in favour of backward classes of citizens which in its opinion are not adequately represented either numerically or qualitatively in services of the State. But it confers no constitutional right upon the members of the backward classes to claim reservation. Article 16(4) is not controlled by a Presidential Order issued under Article 341(1) or Article 342(1) of the Constitution in the sense that reservation in the matter of appointment on posts may be made in a State or Union territory only for such Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes which are mentioned in the schedule appended to the Presidential Order for that particular State or Union territory. This Article does not say that only such Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes which are mentioned in the Presidential Order issued for a particular State alone would be recognized as backward classes of citizens and none else. If a State or Union territory makes a provision whereunder the benefit of reservation is extended only to such Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes which are recognized as such, in relation to that State or Union territory then such a provision would be perfectly valid. However, there would be no infraction of clause (4) of Article 16 if a Union territory by virtue of its peculiar position being governed by the President as laid down in Article 239 extends the benefit of reservation even to such migrant Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes who are not mentioned in the schedule to the Presidential Order issued for such Union territory. The U.T. of Pondicherry having adopted a policy of Central Government whereunder all Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes, irrespective of their State are eligible for posts which are reserved for SC/ST candidates, no legal infirmity can be ascribed to such a policy and the same cannot be held to be contrary to any provision of law. Thus, we are of the opinion that there has been no violation of any constitutional or any other legal provision in making selection and appointment of migrant Scheduled Caste candidates against the quota reserved for Scheduled Castes on the post of Selection Grade Teachers. The view to the contrary taken by the Tribunal cannot, therefore, be sustained and has to be set aside. The appeals are accordingly allowed and the judgment and order dated 5.11.1996 of the Central Administrative Tribunal (Madras Bench) is set aside.
Issues Involved:
1. Legality of selection and appointment of migrant Scheduled Caste (SC) candidates. 2. Applicability of Article 341 of the Constitution regarding SC reservations. 3. Authority and policies of the Union Territory (UT) of Pondicherry in relation to reservation benefits. 4. Interpretation of Presidential Orders and Government Circulars regarding SC reservations. Detailed Analysis: 1. Legality of Selection and Appointment of Migrant SC Candidates: The appeals were filed against the Central Administrative Tribunal's decision declaring the selection of migrant SC candidates for the post of Selection Grade Teachers in Pondicherry as illegal. The Tribunal relied on the judgments in Marri Chandra Shekhar Rao vs. Dean, SGS Medical College & Ors and Action Committee on Issue of Caste Certificate to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes in the State of Maharashtra vs. Union of India & Anr., which held that SC persons migrating to another state cannot claim reservation benefits in the new state. The Tribunal directed the exclusion of migrant SC candidates who had migrated after the 1964 Presidential notification. 2. Applicability of Article 341 of the Constitution: Article 341(1) specifies that the President may, with respect to any State or Union territory, specify the castes deemed to be Scheduled Castes in relation to that State or Union territory. The appellants argued that the migration from a State to an adjoining Union territory like Pondicherry should not be treated the same as migration from one State to another. The respondents contended that only castes mentioned in the Presidential Order of 1964 should be deemed SCs in Pondicherry, making migrant SC persons ineligible for reserved posts. 3. Authority and Policies of UT of Pondicherry: The UT of Pondicherry is administered by the President through an administrator. The appellants argued that the consistent policy of the Pondicherry administration, following Central Government orders, allowed migrant SC persons to benefit from reservations. Several Government of India orders and circulars were cited, which extended reservation benefits to SC candidates from other states in Central Government services and, by extension, to services in Pondicherry. 4. Interpretation of Presidential Orders and Government Circulars: The Government of India has issued circulars clarifying that SC candidates from any state are eligible for reserved posts in Central Government offices, including those in Pondicherry. The Pondicherry administration has followed this policy consistently. The appellants contended that this policy was not illegal or contrary to any constitutional provisions. The Tribunal's reliance on Marri Chandra Shekhar Rao was deemed misplaced as Pondicherry, being a Union territory, is not a State and is governed by different administrative principles. Conclusion: The Supreme Court held that there was no violation of any constitutional or legal provisions in the selection and appointment of migrant SC candidates in Pondicherry. The consistent policy of the Pondicherry administration, aligning with Central Government orders, was upheld. The Tribunal's decision was set aside, and the appeals were allowed. The Court emphasized that the principles applicable to States cannot be directly applied to Union territories like Pondicherry, which are administered by the President through an appointed administrator.
|
