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-versa

A 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 facts

The 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 Court

Presidential Order operates in relation to the state

The 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 migrated", the judgment noted.

The Court further noted that the Constitution Bench decisions of the Supreme Court have rejected the contention that the member of the Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes should get the benefit for the purpose of Constitution through out the territory of India, observing that if such contention is to be accepted, the very expression "in relation to State" would lose its significance.

Instant case not one of migration

The Court further observed that the instant case was not one of voluntary or involuntary migration.

"The question that emerges for our consideration in the instant appeals is whether a person, who has been a resident of the State of Bihar and where the Constitution(Scheduled Castes)/(Scheduled Tribes) Order, 1950 identifying castes/tribes is issued extending the benefit to members of SC/ST throughout the integrated State of Bihar which was later on bifurcated by virtue of a statutory instrument, i.e., the Act, 2000, into two successor States (State of Bihar and State of Jharkhand) with their rights and privileges to theextent being protected by legislative enactment under the provisions of the Act 2000, could still be considered to be a migrant to the successor State of Jharkhand depriving them of their privileges and benefits to which the incumbent or their lineal descendants has availed from the very inception of the Presidential Order 1950 in the integrated State of Bihar", it said.

The bench said that the collective readings of the provisions of the Bihar Reorganisation Act, 2000, makes it apparent that such persons whose place of origin/domicile on or before the appointed day (November 15, 2000) was of Bihar now falling within the districts/regions which form a successor State, that is Jharkhand under Section 3 of the Act, 2000 became ordinary resident of the State of Jharkhand.

At the same time, so far as the employees who were in public employment in Bihar on or before November 15, 2000, apart from those who have domicile of either of the district which became part of Jharkhand, such employees who have exercised their option to serve in Jharkhand their existing service conditions shall stands protected by virtue of Section 73 of the Act, 2000.

In this backdrop, the Court said :

"It will be highly unfair and pernicious to their interest if the benefits of reservation with privileges and benefits flowing thereof are not being protected in the State of Jharkhand after he is absorbed by virtue to Section 73 of the Act 2000 that clearly postulates not only to protect the existing service conditions but the benefit of reservation and privileges which they were enjoying on or before the appointed day, i.e. November 15, 2000 in the State of Bihar not to be varied to their disadvantage after they became a member of service in the State of Jharkhand".

The Court said that in its considered view, such of the employees who are members of the SC/ST/OBC whose caste/tribe has been notified by an amendment to the Constitution(SC)/(ST) Order 1950 or by the separate notification for members of OBC category, benefit of reservation shall remain protected by virtue of Section 73 of the Act, 2000 for all practical purposes which can be claimed (including by their wards) for participation in public employment.

"We are of the view that the present appellant Pankaj Kumar , being a serving employee (as an assistant teacher) in the State of Jharkhand by virtue of Section 73 of the Act 2000, would be entitled to claim the benefit of reservation including the privileges and benefits admissible to the members of SC category in Jharkhand for all practical purposes including participation in open competition seeking public employment", it said.

Appointments however upheld on grounds of equity

So far as the other appellants are concerned, the Court said that there is no material placed by them on record to justify that how long they were residing in the districts which now form part of the successor State of Jharkhand and the advertisement of the year 2004 required that one has to submit a caste certificate issued by the competent authority of the State of Jharkhand and none of them produced the caste certificate. The Court held them to be migrants to the State of Jharkhand which would disentitle them in claiming the benefit of reservation in view of the judgments of the Constitution Bench.

But the Court took note of the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case as follows :

• the appellants had bonafidely submitted their application pursuant to an advertisement dated 13th January, 2004 issued by the State of Jharkhand holding selection for the post of Constable;
• it is not the case of the respondents that either of the appellant has misrepresented while participating in the selection process;
• the caste/tribe/OBC to which either of the appellant belongs is not being notified as such category in the State of Jharkhand;
• the appellants are appointed, after going through the process of selection served for 3-4 years;
• their services came to be terminated in June, 2008 and who were never at fault have lost almost 13 years in litigation;
• the appellants cannot secure employment at a later stage.

Hence, exercising powers under Article 142 of the Constitution, they were directed to be reinstated.

Case Details

Case Title : Pankaj Kumar v.The State of Jharkhand

Bench : Justices UU Lalit and Ajay Rastogi

Citation : LL 2021 SC 397

Click here to read/download the judgment