Case: Subhash Chandra  Vs. Delhi Subordinate Ser.Sel.Board


Decision reasoning: 1[ds]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 themerely because a given caste is specified in one State as belonging to OBCs does not necessarily mean that if there be another group belonging to the same nomenclature in other State and a person belonging to that group is entitled to the rights, privileges and benefits admissible to the members of that caste. These aspects have to be borne in mind in interpreting the provisions of the Constitution with reference to application of reservation to OBCs.So far, this Court has not applied the "creamy layer" principle to the general principle of equality for the purpose of reservation. The "creamy layer" so far has been applied only to identify the backward class, as it required certain parameters to determine the backward classes. "Creamy layer" principle is one of the parameters to identify backward classes. Therefore, principally, the "creamy layer" principle cannot be applied to STs and SCs, as SCs and STs are separate classes by themselves. Ray, C.J., in an earlier decision, stated that "Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes are not a caste within the ordinary meaning of caste". And they are so identified by virtue of the notification issued by the President of India under Articles 341 and 342 of the Constitution. The President may, after consultation with the Governor, by public notification, specify the castes, races or tribes or parts of or groups within castes, races or tribes which for the purpose of the Constitution shall be deemed to be Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes. Once the notification is issued, they are deemed to be the members of Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes, whichever is applicable.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.If the principle applied in S. Pushpa (supra) is to be given a logical extension, it will lead to an absurdity, that the Scheduled Castes Order in a State brought under the control of the President under Article 356 could be altered by virtue of a notification issued in pursuance of Article 16(4) of the Constitution. Clause (4) of Article 16 of the Constitution, as noticed hereinbefore, cannot be made applicable for the purpose of grant of benefit of reservation for Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes in a State or Union Territory, who have migrated to another State or Union Territory and they are not members of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes.By virtue of Article 341, the Presidential orders made under clause (1) thereof acquire an overriding status. But for Articles 341 and 342 of the Constitution, it would have been possible for both the Union and the States, to legislate upon, or frame policies, concerning the subject of reservation, vis-`-vis inclusion of Castes/Tribes. The presence of Articles 338, 338A, 341, 342 in the Constitution clearly preclude that.Both the Central Government and the State Government indisputably may lay down a policy decision in regard to reservation having regard to Articles 15 and 16 of the Constitution of India but such a policy cannot violate other constitutional provisions. A policy cannot have primacy over the constitutional scheme.If for the purposes of Articles 341 and 342 of the Constitution of India, State and the Union Territory are at par on the ground of administrative exigibility or in exercise of the administrative power, the constitutional interdict contained in clause (2) of Article 341 or clause (2) of Article 342 of the Constitution of India cannot be got rid of.There is another aspect of the matter. When reservation for scheduled castes or scheduled tribes had been earmarked, persons answering the description thereto only can be appointed. No recruitment is permissible for a backward class against a scheduled caste or scheduled tribe quota. That itself would be violative of clauses (1) and (4) of Article 16 of the Constitution of India. Furthermore, if a person is to be treated as scheduled caste or scheduled tribe in terms of Article 341 of the Constitution of India, the benefit attached thereto in all other areas must be conferred on him. A person cannot be treated to be a member of scheduled caste for one purpose and not for another purpose.43. The law relating to affirmative action and protective discrimination by way of reservation of posts for the members of the Scheduled Castes invoking Clause (4) of Article 16 of the Constitution of India is reflected by constitutionalism, i.e., the provisions of the Constitution of India read with the executive instructions issued by the National Capital Territory of Delhi in this behalf which has the force of law in terms whereof only the classes of persons who would be entitled thereto were determined. By judicial process or otherwise, the said executive instructions which are consistent with the constitutional scheme could not have brought about an altogether different situation as a result whereof those who are residents of Delhi being belonging to the members of the Scheduled Castes and, thus, entitled to be regarded within the framework of the quota provided for by the Government could not have been deprived therefrom by way of bringing in another class of persons within the purview of the said category of Scheduled Castes who are not entitled to the said benefit. By reason of such an Act, those who are entitled to the benefit of the doctrine of protective discrimination contained in Clause (4) of Article 16 of the Constitution of India had been deprived of their constitutional right. Once it is found that the constitutional violation of this nature has been committed, in our opinion, the Courts would be entitled to apply the principle of strict scrutiny test or closer scrutiny test or higher level of scrutiny. It is commonly believed amongst a section of Academicians that strict scrutiny test in view of the Constitution Bench decision of this Court in Ashok Kumar Thakur (supra) is not applicable in India at all.The only question which survives is as to whether S. Pushpa (supra) constitutes a binding precedent. A decision, as is well known, is an authority for what it decides and not what can logically be deduced therefrom.In S. Pushpa (supra), decisions of the Constitution Benches of this Court in Milind (supra) had not been taken into consideration. Although the case of Chinnaiah (supra) was decided later on, we are bound by the same. It is now a well settled principle of law that a division bench, in case of conflict between a decision of a Division Bench of two Judges and a decision of a larger Bench and in particular Constitution Bench, would be bound by theCourt in Marri Chandra Shekhar Rao (supra) categorically held that when a person is held to be a member of scheduled caste for one State, he cannot be treated as such in another. In Milind (supra), it was categorically held that the High Court, in exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, cannot make any roving inquiry for the purpose of finding out as to whether a person belonging to one caste would, for one reason or the other, can be held to be belonging to another caste or tribe which had been notified as scheduled caste or scheduled tribe. It is also well known that a decision rendered in ignorance of a binding precedent and/or in ignorance of a constitutional provision, would be held to have been rendered per incuriam.Would we be violating the norms of judicial discipline in ignoring the decision of this Court in Pushpa is the question, having regard to the provisions contained in Article 141 of the Constitution of India?The question is a difficult one. On the one hand, this Court emphasizes the need for speaking in one voice and/or adhering to the doctrine of certainty so as not only to enable this Court but also the High Court and the subordinate courts to know exactly what the law is and, on the other hand, it is now trite that having regard to the binding nature of the doctrine of stare decisis, whether we would be bound by our own decision and to what extent.Should we consider Pushpa to be an obiter following the said decision is the question which arises herein.We think we should. The decisions referred to hereinbefore clearly suggest that we are bound by a Constitution Bench decision. We have referred to two Constitution Bench decisions, namely Marri Chandra Shekhar Rao and E.V. Chinnaiah. Marri Chandra Shekhar Rao had been followed by this Court in a large number of decisions including Three Judge Bench decisions. Pushpa, therefore, could not have ignored either Marri Chandra Shekhar Rao or other decisions following the same only on the basis of an administrative circular issued or otherwise and more so when the Constitutional scheme as contained in clause (1) of Articles 341 and 342 of the Constitution of India putting the State and Union Territory in the same bracket.Following Dayanand (supra), therefore, we are of the opinion that the dicta in Pushpa is an obiter and does not lay down any binding ratio.