Case: DIRECTOR TRANSPORT DEPARTMENT UNION TERRITORY ADMINISTRATION OF DADRA AND NAGAR HAVELI SILVASSA Vs. MR. ABHINAV DIPAKBHAI PATEL

Inspector and the candidates were informed about the weightage to be given to the locals. 8. In Marri Chandra Shekhar Rao v. Dean, Seth G.S. Medical College and Others (1990) 3 SCC 130 the Petitioner belonged to ‘Gouda? community in the State of Andhra Pradesh which was recognized as a Scheduled Tribe in the Presidential Order issued for the said State. He applied for admission in a medical college in the State of Maharashtra and claimed the benefit of reservation. ‘Gouda? community was not recognized as a Scheduled Tribe in the Presidential Order issued for the State of Maharashtra, and on that ground he was denied the benefit of reservation. It was held by this Court that he had no legal right to claim benefit of reservation in the State of Maharashtra as his community was not included as a Scheduled Tribe in the Presidential Order issued for the State of Maharashtra. 9. Appointments of Selection Grade T eachers made by the Directorate of Education, Government of Pondicherry was the subject matter of a judgment of this Court in S. Pushpa (supra). An advertisement was issued for recruitment of 350 General Central Service Group ‘C? posts of Selection Grade T eachers out of which 56 posts were reserved for Scheduled Caste candidates. As sufficient number of Scheduled Castes candidates were not available in the Yanam and Mahe regions of the Union T erritory of Pondicherry, candidates registered in the neighbouring employment exchanges in the States of T amil Nadu, Andhra Pradesh and Kerala were also sponsored. The question that arose for consideration therein was whether a migrant Scheduled Caste candidate belonging to another State was eligible for appointment to the post which is reserved for a Scheduled Caste candidate in the Union T erritory of Pondicherry. The Central Administrative Tribunal was of the opinion that migrant Scheduled Caste candidates were not entitled to claim the benefit of reservation in the matter of employment in the Pondicherry Government Service. This Court reversed the judgment of the Central Administrative Tribunal by observing that there is no violation of any provision of the Constitution of India in making the selection and appointment of migrant Scheduled Caste candidates against the quota reserved for Scheduled Castes in the Union T erritory of Pondicherry. 10. Government Orders issued by the Pondicherry Government extending the benefit of reservation for admissions in colleges was extended only to the members of the Scheduled Castes who were originally from the Union T erritory. While referring to the notification issued under Articles 341(1) and 342(1) of the Constitution of India, this Court in Puducherry Scheduled Caste People Welfare Association (supra) decided that no amendment, modification, alteration or variation of the Presidential Order is permissible by an executive power. Altering the word ?Resident? in the Presidential Order to ?Origin? by an executive order amounted to altering the Presidential Order, was held to be impermissible by this Court in the said judgment. 11. In view of the difference of opinion relating to the extension of benefits or concessions allowed to Scheduled Caste candidates belonging to a particular State in another State, the matter was referred to a Constitution Bench. In Bir Singh?s case (supra), this Court was of the opinion that the correctness of the view expressed in the case of S. Pushpa (supra) did not require reconsideration. The Constitution Bench also reiterated that the Presidential Notification issued under Articles 341 and 342 cannot be altered or modified by the Executive. The upshot of the above discussion is that a person belonging to a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe which is notified by the President for a Union T erritory is entitled to be considered as a reserved candidate provided he is a resident of the said Union T erritory. 12. There is no dispute that the Respondent was a resident in the Union T erritory of Dadra and Nagar Haveli for six years prior to the date of advertisement. He stated in the Writ Petition that he owns an apartment in which he was residing and he married a woman from ?Dhodia? tribe in the Union T erritory. He further stated that his name is in the Voter?s List in the Union T erritory. These facts have not been disputed by the Appellants. The central issue raised by the Appellants before the High Court was that a person should be a local in the Union T erritory which meant that migrant Scheduled Tribes cannot be given the benefit of reservation. The Presidential Notification issued for the Union T erritory of Dadra and Nagar Haveli extends the benefit of reservation to the Scheduled Tribes mentioned therein on the basis of residence and not on the basis of origin. We find no force in the point canvassed by the learned counsel for the Appellants that the reservation for Scheduled Tribes in the Union T erritory of Dadra and Nagar Haveli is not available to migrant Scheduled Tribes. A feeble attempt was made by the learned counsel for the Appellant that the requirement of residence is for a period of 10 years for a person to claim the benefit of reservation. There is no material which was placed on record in the High Court in support of the said submission and there was no such averment in the counter affidavit filed in the Writ Petition. This point was not raised before the High Court and no such ground is taken in the Special Leave Petition for which reason the said contention does not merit any consideration. Other points canvassed by the learned Senior Counsel for the Respondent need not be adverted to in view of the order we propose to pass. Gross injustice is caused to the Respondent by the action of the Appellants in not appointing him in spite of the advice of the Union of India and the direction issued by the National Commission for Scheduled Tribes. The appointment of Respondent as Assistant Motor Vehicle Inspector does not brook any further delay.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 0

Explanation:
0[ds]The upshot of the above discussion is that a person belonging to a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe which is notified by the President for a Union T erritory is entitled to be considered as a reserved candidate provided he is a resident of the said Union T erritory.There is no dispute that the Respondent was a resident in the Union T erritory of Dadra and Nagar Haveli for six years prior to the date of advertisement. He stated in the Writ Petition that he owns an apartment in which he was residing and he married a woman from ?Dhodia? tribe in the Union T erritory. He further stated that his name is in the Voter?s List in the Union T erritory. These facts have not been disputed by the Appellants. The central issue raised by the Appellants before the High Court was that a person should be a local in the Union T erritory which meant that migrant Scheduled Tribes cannot be given the benefit of reservation. The Presidential Notification issued for the Union T erritory of Dadra and Nagar Haveli extends the benefit of reservation to the Scheduled Tribes mentioned therein on the basis of residence and not on the basis of origin. We find no force in the point canvassed by the learned counsel for the Appellants that the reservation for Scheduled Tribes in the Union T erritory of Dadra and Nagar Haveli is not available to migrant Scheduled Tribes. A feeble attempt was made by the learned counsel for the Appellant that the requirement of residence is for a period of 10 years for a person to claim the benefit of reservation. There is no material which was placed on record in the High Court in support of the said submission and there was no such averment in the counter affidavit filed in the Writ Petition. This point was not raised before the High Court and no such ground is taken in the Special Leave Petition for which reason the said contention does not merit any consideration. Other points canvassed by the learned Senior Counsel for the Respondent need not be adverted to in view of the order we propose to pass. Gross injustice is caused to the Respondent by the action of the Appellants in not appointing him in spite of the advice of the Union of India and the direction issued by the National Commission for Scheduled Tribes. The appointment of Respondent as Assistant Motor Vehicle Inspector does not brook any further delay.