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

The Respondent belongs to ?Dhodia? caste which is recognized as a Scheduled Tribe category in the State of Gujarat as well as in the Union T erritory of Dadra and Nagar Haveli. He holds a caste certificate which was issued by the concerned competent authority in the State of Gujarat. He shifted his residence from Gujarat to the Union T erritory of Dadra and Nagar Haveli. He owns a residential accommodation in the Union T erritory and has a Voter?s I.D. card to show that he was a resident of Dadra and Nagar Haveli.An advertisement was issued on 25.10.2014 calling for applications for filling up two posts of Assistant Motor Vehicle Inspectors, one of them reserved for the Scheduled Tribe category. It was made clear in the advertisement that all Indian citizens could apply for appointment to the post. However, persons having ‘Domicile? in Dadra and Nagar Haveli would be given weightage. Candidates claiming to be members of a Scheduled Tribe were required to furnish an attested copy of the certificate issued by the competent authority stating that he/ she belongs to the Scheduled Tribe community. The Respondent applied for selection to the post of Assistant Motor Vehicle Inspector and after scrutiny of 114 applications that were received, it was found that three candidates belonging to the ‘General? category and two from the ‘Scheduled Tribe? category were eligible. The respondent appeared in the written examination on 01.07.2015. T o his surprise, the Respondent found that the result of the written examination for the Scheduled Tribe vacancy was not announced while announcing the result for the unreserved post on 11.07.2015. As there was no response to the representations made by him regarding his non-selection to the post of Assistant Motor Vehicle Inspector, he approached the National Commission for Scheduled Tribes, Govt. of India. The National Commission, being convinced that the Respondent was a resident of the Union T erritory of Dadra and Nagar Haveli and that he belongs to a Scheduled Tribe category, directed the representative of Dadra and Nagar Haveli to seek a clarification from the Ministry of Home Affairs, Govt. of India and appoint the Respondent thereafter. The Ministry of Home Affairs, Govt. of India clarified that the Respondent was eligible for appointment and advised the concerned authority to take appropriate action as per the directions issued by the National Commission for Schedule Tribes. After a series of correspondence between the Government of India, Union T erritory of Dadra and Nagar Haveli and the National Commission, an order was passed on 25.07.2016 by the National Commission directing the Appellants to issue a letter of appointment in favour of the Respondent. Since no action was taken to appoint the Respondent, he was constrained to file a Writ Petition in the High Court of Judicature at Bombay.On behalf of the Appellants, it was submitted before the High Court that a policy was framed by the Union T erritory of Dadra and Nagar Haveli on 01.09.2006 by which it was decided that the local candidates from open category had to provide ‘Domicile? certificate. Insofar as the reserved categories are concerned, only local candidates would be considered. The said policy was modified on 26.12.2013 only in respect of ‘Domicile? relating to open category candidates. It was also contended on behalf of the Appellants that there can be no difference between migrants of the Scheduled Tribe from one State to another and from one State to a Union T erritory. As there was a separate Presidential Order issued for notifying the Scheduled Tribes in Dadra and Nagar Haveli, migrants cannot claim the benefit of reservation in the Union T erritory. While referring to the weightage given to local candidates, the Appellants submitted that 20 marks were given for local candidates in the selection process which apply equally to the open category and the reserved category candidates. However, the Appellants maintained that the benefit of reservation under the Scheduled Tribes category was restricted only to local candidates and not migrants.The High Court was not impressed with the submission of the Appellants that the members of the Scheduled Tribe category from outside the Union T erritory were excluded from consideration for appointment to the public post in the Union T erritory in the reserved category. Weightage of marks given to local candidates in the selection indicates that outsiders were not excluded from consideration, according to the High Court. The Respondent was found to be a resident of the Union T erritory of Dadra and Nagar Haveli and though he migrated from the State of Gujarat, he was entitled to be considered for appointment as a reserved category candidate. On the basis of the said findings, the High Court directed the Appellants to appoint Respondent as Assistant Motor Vehicle Inspector with effect from the date of appointment of other candidates from the same selection process.

Reasoning: 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.