Case: PANKAJ KUMAR Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND &amp; ORS

3. The brief narration of facts for proper appreciation of the controversy relevant for the purpose are as under.4. In Civil Appeal @ SLP(Civil) No. 13473 of 2020, the appellants father originally belonged to District Patna in the State of Bihar but as alleged, the appellant was born on 27th November, 1974 in Hazaribagh where his father was residing which earlier was part of the unified State of Bihar but after the Bihar Reorganisation Act, 2000(hereinafter being referred to as Act, 2000) came into force from the appointed day, i.e. 15th November 2000, District Hazaribagh became part of the successor State of Jharkhand.5. It was the specific case pleaded by him that he was born & brought up and took his education within the territory which is now in the State of Jharkhand. He belongs to Scheduled Caste category and a certificate was issued by the competent authority in the State of Jharkhand. He was appointed on the post of Assistant Teacher on 21st December, 1999 and posted in a school in Ranchi, the capital of Jharkhand against the post reserved for SC category and pursuant to the cadre revision on bifurcation of the States, he opted the State of Jharkhand. While serving as a teacher, to go forward and to fulfil his ambitions, he appeared as a member of SC category in the third Combined Civil Services examination, 2008 pursuant to an advertisement no. 11 of 2007 published by the State of Jharkhand.6. He cleared the preliminary, as well as main examination followed with an interview and the final result was published in the year 2010 and his name appeared at Sl. No. 5 against 17 vacancies reserved for Scheduled Caste category. But when his appointment order was withheld and persons lower in order of merit in the Scheduled Caste category were appointed on 11th August, 2010, receiving no response from the State authorities of his ignorance from being considered for appointment despite being placed in the order of merit, he knocked the doors of the High Court by filing a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution.7. In the counter affidavit filed by the State of Jharkhand, it was admitted that the appellant is the member of Scheduled Caste and has been duly selected in the Scheduled Caste category, but their defence was that his service book indicates that he is permanent resident of District Patna in the State of Bihar is to be treated as migrant to the State of Jharkhand. In consequence, he was not eligible for appointment in Scheduled Caste category pursuant to his participation in the selection process held in the Combined Civil Services Examination, 2008.8. Learned Single Judge of the High Court by a judgment dated 13th October, 2017 allowed the writ petition with a direction to the respondent State to issue the letter of appointment in his favour, which was challenged by State in the Letters Patent Appeal and came to be allowed by the impugned judgment with the majority of 2:1.9. The other batch of appeals in Civil Appeals @ SLP(Civil) No(s). 3610-3615 of 2021 are preferred by the appellants as alleged who were residing in the State of Jharkhand on the appointed day, i.e. 15th November, 2000 and after going through the process of selection held pursuant to an advertisement dated 13th January, 2004, were appointed as Constables against the post reserved for Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe/OBC category in the State of Jharkhand and after they had served for about three years, their services were terminated on the premise, that they are permanent residents of the State of Bihar and had produced the caste certificate issued by the authority of the State of Bihar, hence could not be entitled to claim benefit of reservation of SC/ST/OBC in the successor State of Jharkhand, by an Order dated 16th June, 2008.10. The order of termination came to be challenged by filing writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution which was dismissed by the learned Single Judge of the High Court by a judgment dated 30th January, 2015. Aggrieved by the order of learned Single Judge, appellants preferred LPA that came to be clubbed along with the LPA preferred by the appellant Pankaj Kumar and all the analogous matters were heard and dismissed by the impugned judgment which is a subject matter of challenge in the instant batch of appeals.

Reasoning:
37. The Constitution Bench of this Court in Marri Chandra Shekhar Rao(supra) had an occasion to examine as to whether the person belonging to Scheduled Castes in relation to a particular State would be entitled to the benefits or concessions allowed to Scheduled Castes in the matter of education/employment in another State. Referring to various provisions of the Constitution and the grounds on which the Presidential Orders were issued and noticing earlier judgments, this Court held as under:-9. It appears that Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes in some States had to suffer the social disadvantages and did not have the facilities for development and growth. It is, therefore, necessary in order to make them equal in those areas where they have so suffered and are in the state of underdevelopment to have reservations or protection in their favour so that they can compete on equal terms with the more advantageous or developed sections of the community. Extreme social and economic backwardness arising out of traditional practices of untouchability is normally considered as criterion for including a community in the list of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. 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. This, however, is a different problem whether a member or the Scheduled Caste in one part of the country who migrates to another State or any other Union territory should continue to be treated as a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe in which he has migrated. That question has to be judged taking into consideration the interest and well-being of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes in the country as a whole.38. This Court, while rejecting 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, observed that if such contention is to be accepted, the very expression in relation to State would lose its significance. Marri Chandra Shekhar Rao(supra) was further followed by another Constitution Bench of this Court in Action Committee on Issue of Caste Certificate to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes inthe State of Maharashtra and Anr.(supra)which further came to be followed by another Constitution Bench of this Court in Bir Singh(supra) wherein in para 34, it was held as under:-34. Unhesitatingly, therefore, it can be said that a person belonging to a Scheduled Caste in one State cannot be deemed to be a Scheduled Caste person in relation to any other State to which he migrates for the purpose of employment or education. The expressions in relation to that State or Union Territory and for the purpose of this Constitution used in Articles 341 and 342 of the Constitution of India would mean that the benefits of reservation provided for by the Constitution would stand confined to the geographical territories of a State/Union Territory in respect of which the lists of Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes have been notified by the Presidential Orders issued from time to time. A person notified as a Scheduled Caste in State A cannot claim the s ame status in another State on the basis that he is declared as a Scheduled Caste in State A.39. So far as involuntary migration from one State to another State is concerned, the Constitution Bench of this Court in Marri Chandra Shekhar Rao(supra) taking note of the fate of those castes/tribes seeking protection of being classed as Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes in the State of their origin when, because of transfer or movement of their father or guardians business or service, they move to another State having considered the fate of their migration from one State to another State being involuntary, by force or circumstances either of employment or of profession, left it for the legislature or the Parliament to consider it for appropriate legislation bearing that aspect in mind that their rights and privileges as members of Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes be well protected by virtue of provisions of Articles 341(1) and 342(1) of the Constitution and observed in para 23 as under:-23. Having construed the provisions of Articles 341 and 342 of the Constitution in the manner we have done, the next question that falls for consideration, is, the question of the fate of those Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe students who get the protection of being classed as Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe in the States of origin when, because of transfer or movement of their father or guardians business or service, they move to other States as a matter of voluntary (sic involuntary) transfer, will they be entitled to some sort of protective treatment so that they may continue or pursue their education. Having considered the facts and circumstances of such situation, it appears to us that where the migration from one State to another is involuntary, by force of circumstances either of employment or of profession, in such cases if students or persons apply in the migrated State where without affecting prejudicially the rights of the Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes in those States or areas, any facility or protection for continuance of study or admission can be given to one who has or migrated then some consideration is desirable to be made on that ground. It would, therefore, be necessary and perhaps desirable for the legislatures or the Parliament to consider appropriate legislations bearing this aspect in mind so that proper effect is given to the rights given to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes by virtue of the provisions under Articles 341 and 342 of the Constitution. This is a matter which the State legislatures or the Parliament may appropriately take into consideration.40. In relation to Backward Classes, this Court in M.C.D. Vs. Veena and Others 2001 (6) SCC 571    has specifically held that migrants are not entitled for reservation as Other Backward Classes (OBCs) in the States/Union Territories where they have migrated. The relevant portion of the judgment that may be noticed is as hereunder:6. Castes or groups are specified in relation to a given State or Union Territory, which obviously means that such caste would include caste belonging to an OBC group in relation to that State or Union Territory for which it is specified. The matters that are to be taken into consideration for specifying a particular caste in a particular group belonging to OBCs would depend on the nature and extent of disadvantages and social hardships suffered by that caste or group in that State. However, it may not be so in another State to which a person belonging thereto goes by migration. It may also be that a caste belonging to the same nomenclature is specified in two States but the considerations on the basis of which they had been specified may be totally different. So the degree of disadvantages of various elements which constitute the data for specification may also be entirely different. Thus, merely 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 another State, 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.41. By the judgments of the Constitution Bench of which the reference has been made (supra), it has been settled that the person belonging to Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes/OBC of the State, on migration to another State voluntarily or involuntarily, will not be entitled to claim benefits of reservation including privileges and benefits admissible to the member of the Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes/OBC even though, the caste or tribe of the same nomenclature is notified in the latter State(State where migrated) and if that is being permitted, the very expression as mandated under Articles 341(1) and 342(1) of the Constitution in relation to the State would become otiose and this issue remain no more res integra after the pronouncements made by the Constitution Bench of this Court.The bare perusal of the Government Orders of which a reference has been made are addressed to the Chief Secretaries of all State Governments/Union Territory administrations in the form of clarifications issued from time to time to the respective competent authorities for issuance of Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes caste certificates.45. In the instant case, we are not examining the issue of voluntary or involuntary migration of the members of the SC/ST/OBC from State A to another State B claiming privileges/benefits admissible to member of SC/ST/OBC even though there is a caste or tribe of the same nomenclature in the latter State.49. The scheme of the Act 2000 postulates that employees who are working immediately on or before the appointed date, in the State of Bihar, has either domicile of the districts that formed part of State of Jharkhand under Section 3 of the Act or opted or joined being junior in their respective seniority, stands absorbed in the successor State of Jharkhand and by virtue of a statutory instrument, their service conditions stand protected and became entitled to claim privileges and benefits to which the members of scheduled castes/scheduled tribes/OBC are entitled for in terms of the Presidential Order 1950 as amended from time to time.50. This Court, while examining almost a similar nature of controversy in Sudhakar Vithal Kumbhare(supra) held as under:-5. But the question which arises for consideration herein appears to have not been raised in any other case. It is not in dispute that the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes have suffered disadvantages and been denied facilities for development and growth in several States. They require protective preferences, facilities and benefits inter alia in the form of reservation, so as to enable them to compete on equal terms with the more advantaged and developed sections of the community. The question is as to whether the appellant being a Scheduled Tribe known as Halba/Halbi which stands recognized both in the State of Madhya Pradesh as well as in the State of Maharashtra having their origin in Chhindwara region, a part of which, on States reorganisation, has come to the State of Maharashtra, was entitled to the benefit of reservation. It is one thing to say that the expression in relation to that State occurring in Article 342 of the Constitution of India should be given an effective or proper meaning so as to exclude the possibility that a tribe which has been included as a Scheduled Tribe in one State after consultation with the Governor for the purpose of the Constitution may not get the same benefit in another State whose Governor has not been consulted; but it is another thing to say that when an area is dominated by members of the same tribe belonging to the same region which has been bifurcated, the members would not continue to get the same benefit when the said tribe is recognized in both the States. In other words, the question that is required to be posed and answered would be as to whether the members of a Scheduled Tribe belonging to one region would continue to get the same benefits despite bifurcation thereof in terms of the States Reorganisation Act. With a view to find out as to whether any particular area of the country was required to be given protection is a matter which requires detailed investigation having regard to the fact that both Pandhurna in the district of Chhindwara and a part of the area of Chandrapur at one point of time belonged to the same region and under the Constitution (Scheduled Tribes) Order, 1950 as it originally stood the tribe Halba/Halbi of that region may be given the same protection. In a case of this nature the degree of disadvantages of various elements which constitute the input for specification may not be totally different and the State of Maharashtra even after reorganisation might have agreed for inclusion of the said tribe Halba/Halbi as a Scheduled tribe in the State of Maharashtra having regard to the said fact in mind.51. It was a case where the person was a member of Scheduled Tribe known as Halba/Halbi. The tribe had its origin in District Chhindwara region which is a part of State of Madhya Pradesh, a part of the district of Chhindwara place Chandrapur, on States reorgaisation, came to the existing State of Maharashtra from the State of Madhya Pradesh, it was not considered a case of migration from State of Madhya Pradesh to State of Maharashtra. But the State of Maharashtra being the existing State and degree of disadvantages of various elements may be different on the objection being raised by the State of Maharashtra City Board where the incumbent was employed, it was left open for examination by the scrutiny committee constituted and established pursuant to a judgment of this Court in Kumari Madhuri Patil and Another Vs. Addl. Commissioner, Tribal Development and Others 1994(6) SCC 241.52. There is a fundamental dichotomy in the submissions made by the counsel for the State of Jharkhand that the existing service conditions including benefit of reservation in the promotional cadre post shall not be varied to his disadvantage but he shall be considered to be a migrant to the State of Jharkhand while participating in public employment to compete in open/general category and asked to seek the benefit of reservation in the neighbouring State of Bihar, to hold different status in his parent State of Jharkhand after he became a member of service of the State of Jharkhand, serving for sufficient long time on and after the appointed day, i.e. 15th November, 2000 in the State is unsustainable in law and in contravention to the scheme of the Act 2000.53. 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 he was enjoying on or before the appointed day, i.e. 15th November, 2000 in the State of Bihar not to be varied to his disadvantage after he became a member of service in the State of Jharkhand.54. The collective readings of the provisions of the Act, 2000 makes it apparent that such of the persons whose place of origin/domicile on or before the appointed day was of the State of Bihar now falling within the districts/regions which form a successor State, i.e., State of 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 the State of Bihar on or before the appointed day, i.e. 15th November, 2000 under the Act 2000, apart from those who are domicile of either of the district which became part of the State of Jharkhand, such of the employees who have submitted their option or employees who are junior in the cadre of their seniority as per the policy of the Government of India of which a reference has been made, either voluntarily or involuntarily call upon to serve the State of Jharkhand, their existing service conditions shall not be varied to their disadvantage and stands protected by virtue of Section 73 of the Act, 2000.55. In our 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(Scheduled Castes)/(Scheduled Tribes) Order 1950 under Vth and VIth Schedule to Sections 23 and 24 of the Act 2000 or by the separate notification for members of other backward class category, benefit of reservation including privileges and benefits flowing thereof, 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.56. 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.57. We are of the view that the present appellant Pankaj Kumar in Civil Appeal @ SLP(Civil) No.13473 of 2020, being a serving employee 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 Scheduled Caste category in the State of Jharkhand for all practical purposes including participation in open competition seeking public employment.58. So far as the case of other appellants in Civil Appeals @ SLP (Civil) Nos. 3610-3615 of 2021 is concerned, there is no material placed by either of 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. As noticed by us, the present batch of appellants were appointed in the year 2005 as Constables against the post reserved for Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe/OBC category in the State of Jharkhand, in our considered view, were migrants to the State of Jharkhand which would disentitle them in claiming the benefit of reservation in view of the judgment of the Constitution Bench of this Court of which a reference has been made(supra).59. But taking note of the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case which, however, cannot be ignored, that 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 and it is not the case of the respondents that either of the appellant has misrepresented while participating in the selection process or the caste/tribe/OBC to which either of the appellant belongs is not being notified in the Constitution(Scheduled Castes)/(Scheduled Tribes) Order, 1950 which has been amended in reference to Sections 23 and 24 of the Act 2000 or the class of OBC which has been notified by the State of Jharkhand and once 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 and could not secure employment at a later stage. Taking note of the peculiar facts and circumstances and the period of service rendered, while exercising our plenary power under Article 142 of the Constitution, to do complete justice, each of the appellant deserves indulgence of reinstatement in service on notional fixation of pay and allowances, etc.