Citation: 2018 10 SCC 312
Case Type: Civil Appeal
Case No: 1085 of 2013
Appellants: Bir Singh
Respondents: Delhi Jal Board & Ors
Decided On: 30-08-2018
Statues Referred: Constitution of India.
Case Referred:
- State of Uttaranchal V. Sandeep Kumar Singh & Ors
- Marri Chandra Shekar Rao
Bench: Ranjan Gogoi J, N.V. Ramana J, Mohan M. Shantanagoudar J, S Abdul Nazeer J, R. Banumathi J.
Facts:
The Central Administrative Tribunal following the Marri Chandra Shekar Rao and Action committee on the issue of Caste Certificate case, expounded that as far as Union Territory of Delhi is concerned, a migrant schedule Caste person is not entitled to the benefits conferred on the members of the Schedule Castes and Schedule Tribes as enumerated in the list of the Union Territory of Delhi by Presidential Order.
The Delhi High Court sitting in full Judge Bench found that the decision in S. Pushpa case is more directly related to issue at hand and felt the necessity of authoritative pronouncement on the issue and hence granted certificate to appeal under Article 134-A.
Issue:
Whether a person belonging to a Scheduled Caste in relation to a particular State would be
entitled or not, to the benefits or concessions allowed to Scheduled Caste candidate in the matter of employment, in any other State?”
Obiter dicta/ Observation:
The caste system and the division of society based upon the birth or profession had dominated the Hindu thinking and its way of life. This is one of the thorny problem inherited by the British Administration which tried to resolve the issue by giving legal recognition to the “depressed class”.
The Government of India Act, 1935 for the first time brought into force the expression “Schedule castes” in Indian Constitutional history.
Article 366 of the Constitution provides for the definition of “Schedule Castes” to mean
“such castes, races or tribes or parts of or groups within such castes, races or tribes as are deemed under Article 341 to be Scheduled Castes for the purposes of this Constitution”
The social conditions of a caste, however, varies from State to State and it will not be proper to generalise any caste or any tribe as a Scheduled Tribe or Scheduled Caste for the whole country.
“In Marri Chandra Shekhar Rao the Constitution Bench observed that the expression “in relation to that State” must be read meaningfully and harmoniously.
It was observed that if a member of Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes gets the benefit of that status throughout the territory of India, the expression “in relation to that State” would become nugatory. Such a consequences must be avoided”.
The Presidential order issued under Article 341, and 342 cannot be varied or altered by any authority including Courts. It is Parliament alone that has been vested with such power.
Article 16(4) is an enabling provision which enables the State to provide representation to the backward classes including SC/ST in Public Service.
Judgment
The Apex Court’s bench comprising of Ranjan Gogoi J, N.V. Ramana J, Mohan M. Shantanagoudar J, S Abdul Nazeer J, R. Banumathi J, held the following:
Inter-related statutory and constitutional provision have to be harmoniously construed and understood to avoid making any provision nugatory and redundant.
Therefore operation of list of SC/ST beyond the categories enumerated under the Presidential order for a particular State or UT by the exercise of the enabling provision by Article 16(4) would have the effect of overtaking the Constitutional Provision in Article 341/342.
It must also be noted that the power exercised U/A 16(4) by the Parliament but also by the Executive order issued U/A 166 of the Constitution.
“It will, therefore, be in consonance with the constitutional scheme to understand the enabling provision under Article 16(4) to be available to provide reservation only to the classes or categories of Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes enumerated in the Presidential orders for a particular State/Union Territory within the geographical area of that State and not beyond”
“If in the opinion of a State it is necessary to extend the benefit of Reservation to a class/category of Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes beyond those specified in the Lists for that particular State, constitutional discipline would require the State to make its views in the matter prevail with the central authority so as to enable an appropriate parliamentary exercise to be made by an amendment of the Lists of Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes for that particular State”.
Unilateral action by the State upon Article 16(4) would invite constitutional anarchy in place and therefore must be held to be impermissible.
As far as National Capital Territory of Delhi is concerned the Reservation Rule available pan India,is in accord with Constitutional scheme relating to services under State and Union territory.
Rule of Law-
Article 341(1) empowers the President to specify the caste, races, or tribes or parts of groups within caste, races or tribes to be deemed to be Schedule Caste in relation to that Sate or Union Territory, after consulting Governor of that State.
Clause 2 empowers the Parliament by law to include in or exclude from the list of Schedule Caste/ tribes specified in notification, any caste, races or tribe or tribal community or part thereof.
Article 342 provides similar power to both the President and Parliament with respect to Schedule tribes.
Article 16(4) provides that notwithstanding anything contained in this article, the State may make provision for the reservation of appointments or posts in favour of any backward class of citizen which in the opinion of the State is not adequately represented in the services of the State.
Conclusion:
In this landmark judgement the Supreme Court has upheld the Pan-India Reservation Rule in delhi and expounded that State cannot unilaterally introduce it. SC/ST status allotted to a person for quotas in jobs in one State will not be available in other State, except Delhi because it is the national capital of India.