(T.S. Thakur and V. Gopala Gowda, JJ.)
Melwin Chiras Kujur _________________________________ Appellant
v.
State of Maharashtra and Ors. ______________________ Respondent(s)
Civil Appeal No. 7054 of 2015, decided on September 14, 2015
[Arising out of SLP (C) No. 28837 of 2013]
The Order of the court was delivered by
Order
1. Leave granted.
2. In Marri Chandrashekhar Rao v. Seth G.S. Medical College (1990 (3) SCC 130 a Constitution Bench of this Court was considering whether a person belonging to a Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe in the State of his origin can claim the benefit of reservation upon his migration to another State. Answering the question in the negative, this Court held that Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes belonging to a particular area has to be given protection so long as and to the extent they are entitled in order to become equal with others. But equally those who go to other areas shall also ensure that they make way for the disadvantaged and disabled of that part of the community who suffer from disabilities in those areas. The Court declared that the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes candidates say from Andhra Pradesh would require necessary protection as balanced between other communities. But equally the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes of say the State of Maharashtra would require protection in the State of Maharashtra to balance the other communities in that State. Upholding Circular dated 22.03.1977 issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs, this Court held that Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes who migrate from the State of their origin to some other States in search of education and employment etc. will be deemed to be Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe candidates of the State of their origin and will be entitled to derive benefits of reservation only from the State of their origin and not from the State to which they have migrated.
3. Another Constitution Bench of this Court in Action Committee on Issue of Caste Certificate to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes in the State of Maharashtra v. U.O.I. 1994 (5) SCC 244 examined the legality of Government of India Communication dated 22.03.1977 where under Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes persons who migrated from the State of their origin to another State in search of employment or for educational purpose or the like were held not entitled to the benefits of reservations for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes in the State to which they have migrated cannot be benefited in the later State even when they belong to a caste which is included in the Presidential Order as applicable to both the States. Upholding the validity of the communication this Court observed:
On a plain reading of clause(1) of Article 341 and 342 it is manifest that the power of the President is limited to specifying the castes of tribes which shall, for the purposes of the Constitution, be deemed to be Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes in relation to a State of a Union Territory, as the case may be. Once a notification is issued under clause(1) of Articles 341 and 342 of the Constitution, Parliament can by law include in or exclude from the list of Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes, specified in the notification, any caste or tribe but save for that limited purpose the notification issued under clause (1), shall not be varied by any subsequent notification. The castes or tribes have to be specified in relation to a given State of Union Territory. That means a given caste or tribe can be a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe in relation to the State or Union Territory for which it is specified. Considerations for specifying a particular caste or tribe or class for inclusion in the list of Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes or backward classes in a given State would depend on the nature and extent of disadvantages and social hardships suffered by that caste, tribe or class in that State which may be totally non est in another State to which persons belonging thereto may migrate. Coincidentally it may be that a caste or tribe bearing the same nomenclature is specified in two States but the considerations on the basis of which they have been specified may be totally different. So also the degree of disadvantages of various elements which constitute the input for specification may also be totally different. Therefore, merely because a given caste is specified in State A as a Scheduled Caste does not necessarily mean that if there be another caste bearing the same nomenclature in another State the person belonging to the former would be entitled to the rights, privileges and benefits admissible to a member of the Scheduled Caste of the latter state “for the purposes of this Constitution”. This is an aspect which has to be kept in mind and which was very much in the minds of the constitution-makers as is evident from the choice of language of Articles 341 and 342 of the Constitution.”
4. In the case at hand the appellant sought admission to the B.Tech course in a college in the State of Maharashtra for the Session 2009-2010 against a reserved seat meant for Scheduled Tribe candidates. His case was that he belongs to Oraon caste which is found in the States of Jharkhand, Bihar, West Bengal and Maharashtra. His further case was that his fore fathers had migrated to the State of Maharashtra in the year 1947 and ever since then they had lived permanently in the State of Maharashtra. Those belonging to Oraon caste were according to the appellant recognised as Scheduled Tribes even in the State of Maharashtra. The fact that his family had migrated from Jharkhand to Maharashtra could not therefore deny him the benefit of reservation for that caste. This claim of the appellant appears to have been repudiated by the competent authority who declined to grant him a caste validity certificate on the ground that he was a migrant in the State of Maharashtra, hence not entitled to the benefit of reservation.
5. Aggrieved by the denial of the certificate the appellant filed W.P. 7530 of 2012 before the High Court of Judicature at Bombay which petition was dismissed by a Division Bench of that Court by order dated 15.10.2012 relying upon the decision of this Court in Marri Chandrashekhar Rao’s case supra). The present appeal assails the correctness of the said judgment and order.
6. Appearing for the appellant, Mr. Aldanish Rein fairly conceded that the legal position regarding the entitlement of candidates who migrate from one State in the country to another State in search of employment, education and other opportunities has been authoritatively answered against the appellant by the decision of this Court in Action Committee’s case (supra). He submitted that although the Constitution Bench in Marri Chandrashekhar Rao’s case (supra) had dealt with the entitlement of such candidates in the State to which they migrate yet the decision in Action Committee’s case (supra) referred to above was closer to the facts of the case at hand. That is because in Marri Chandrashekhar Rao’s case (supra), the person who had migrated to Maharashtra belonged to a caste that was a Scheduled Tribe in his native State but not so recognised in the State of Maharashtra. In Action Committee’s case (supra) however the candidate who claimed the benefit of such reservation was better placed inasmuch as the caste to which he belonged was a Scheduled Tribe in both the States, as is the position according to the learned counsel even in the case at hand where the Oraon caste is a scheduled tribe in the State of Jharkhand, the native state of the appellant as also in the State of Maharashtra where the appellant has migrated. He submitted that as an abstract proposition of law those migrating from one State to the other may not be entitled to the benefit of reservation in the State to which they migrate even when the caste to which they belong is recognised as Scheduled Tribe or Scheduled Caste in both the States yet the decision in Action Committee’s case (supra) goes on to declare that if the migration was to be earlier than the year 1951 when the Presidential Order was issued, such benefits would be admissible to those who had so migrated. The appellant’s case it was contended all along has been that his fore fathers had migrated to the State of Maharashtra in the year 1947 which entitled the appellant to the benefit of reservation in the State of Maharashtra. It was argued that if on facts it was found that the migration had indeed taken place before the year 1950 the denial of benefit would be illegal. It was submitted that neither the High Court nor the authorities had adverted to that aspect of the matter which may call for a remand to the High Court to determine that issue.
7. Alternatively it was argued that the appellant was admitted to the B.Tech course which he has already completed although his result has not been announced so far. Relying upon the decision of this Court in State of Maharashtra v. Milind 2001 (1) SCC 4, it was argued by learned counsel that the result of the appellant could be directed to be announced as it would be extremely harsh and unreasonable to deprive the appellant of the benefit of the studies that he has undertaken and the hardship that he has undergone. It was submitted that if this Court were to accept the alternative submission made on behalf of the appellant a remand to the High Court may be unnecessary. The legal position as rightly pointed out by learned counsel for the appellant has been firmly settled by the two decisions of the Constitution Bench referred to by us in the earlier paragraphs. Benefits of reservations are not available to those migrating from one State to the other even if such candidates belong to the same caste. That part of the controversy therefore stands concluded and does not require any further elaboration. What remains to be examined is whether the appellant’s fore fathers had migrated to the State of Maharashtra before the year 1950. In the ordinary course this may have required a remand to the High Court to examine that aspect but having regard to the pronouncement of this Court in Milind’s Case (supra), we consider it unnecessary to do so. In Milind’s case the facts were almost similar. That was also a case where the petitioner had been admitted to an educational institution on the basis of his claim that he belongs to the Scheduled Tribe of Halba/Halbi. One of the issues that fell for consideration of this Court was whether the benefit of the training undergone by the candidate could be denied to him much after he had completed the course. Answering that question in the negative, this Court held that while the benefit of the training undergone by the candidate may not be denied to him in the circumstances of the case yet the appellant shall not be entitled to claim that he belongs to the Scheduled Tribe of Halba/Halbi for purposes of any employment or for any other further benefit. We have no hesitation in holding that the essence of the judgment and the principle underlying the same can be applied to the case at hand also. In the present case the appellant has already completed the course though the results remain to be announced. The denial of the benefit of the studies he has undertaken will not mean any corresponding benefit to those who may have been entitled to the same in the absence of the admission granted to the appellant against the vacancy which was allotted to him.
8. In the totality of the circumstances, therefore, we are inclined to direct that the benefit of the studies undertaken by the appellant shall be granted to him and the result of the appellant announced by the authorities concerned subject to the condition that the appellant shall not merely on that basis claim to be a Scheduled Tribe entitled to claim any further benefit. We accordingly allow this appeal, set aside the order passed by the High Court and direct the pronouncement of the result of the appellant. No costs.
———
