In a significant legal milestone, the Supreme Court of India has delivered a crucial judgment supporting the rights of migrant Scheduled Tribes in Union Territories. The judgment reaffirms the eligibility of all eligible candidates, including the petitioner in this case, for reservation benefits. This decision marks a pivotal moment in ensuring inclusivity and fairness in public appointments. Stay informed about this landmark ruling!
Facts
- The Respondent, who belongs to the ‘Dhodia’ caste recognized as a Scheduled Tribe in Gujarat and Dadra and Nagar Haveli, applied for the Assistant Motor Vehicle Inspector post.
- He appeared for the written examination on 01.07.2015.
- Three candidates from the ‘General’ category and two from the ‘Scheduled Tribe’ category were found eligible out of 114 applications received.
- The results for the Scheduled Tribe vacancy were not announced along with the unreserved post on 11.07.2015, causing surprise to the Respondent.
- His representations regarding non-selection were unaddressed, leading him to approach the National Commission for Scheduled Tribes, Govt. of India.
- The National Commission verified his Scheduled Tribe status and residency in Dadra and Nagar Haveli, directing the authorities to seek clarification from the Ministry of Home Affairs and appoint him.
- An advertisement for the Assistant Motor Vehicle Inspector posts issued on 25.10.2014 specified reservation for the Scheduled Tribe category and weightage for candidates with ‘Domicile’ in Dadra and Nagar Haveli.
- The Respondent had shifted his residence from Gujarat to Dadra and Nagar Haveli.
- Benefit of reservation for Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes candidates in Government offices to continue for persons appointed prior to 01.01.1990, with a separate decision for future appointments.
- Persons belonging to Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes domiciled in Dadra and Nagar Haveli to be considered for appointments in reserved categories as per the Office Memorandum dated 01.09.2006.
- Notification was specifically for direct recruitments to group ‘C’ and ‘D’ posts.
- Ministry of Home Affairs clarified eligibility of the Respondent for appointment.
- National Commission for Scheduled Tribes directed Appellants to issue a letter of appointment to the Respondent on 25.07.2016.
- No action taken to appoint the Respondent, leading to the filing of a Writ Petition in the High Court of Judicature at Bombay.
- Union Territory of Dadra and Nagar Haveli policy of 01.09.2006 required ‘Domicile’ certificate for local open category candidates and only local candidates for reserved categories.
Also Read: Supreme Court Ruling on Dowry Harassment and Suicide Case
Arguments
- The Appellants justified their action of refusing to appoint the Respondent based on previous court judgements.
- The Office Memorandum indicated that Scheduled Tribes from other States were not excluded from consideration for appointment.
- There was a distinction made between migrants of Scheduled Tribes from one State to another and to a Union Territory due to separate Presidential Orders.
- The priority for appointment was modified only for ‘Domicile’ relating to open category candidates.
- The Respondent, who had been residing in the Union Territory for six years, secured the highest marks and was eligible for appointment.
- Residence of at least 10 years was required for consideration as a Scheduled Tribe for appointment on a public post.
- Benefit of reservation was given to local candidates with weightage but was restricted only to locals and not migrants.
- The High Court found that outsiders were not excluded from consideration based on the weightage given to local candidates.
- The Government of India approved weightage/preference to local people for direct recruitment in Group ‘B’, ‘C’, and ‘D’ posts.
- The Union Territory decided to give 20 additional marks to locals in both open and reserved categories for direct recruitment to category ‘C’ posts.
- The Respondent, though a migrant from Gujarat, was found eligible to be considered for appointment as a reserved category candidate.
- The High Court directed the Appellants to appoint the Respondent as Assistant Motor Vehicle Inspector.
Also Read: Case of Technical Equipment Officer Appointment Criteria Dispute
Analysis
- The judgment discussed appointments of Selection Grade Teachers by the Directorate of Education in Pondicherry.
- A migrant Scheduled Caste candidate living in another State claimed reservation in Pondicherry, which was disputed.
- The Central Administrative Tribunal initially ruled that migrant Scheduled Caste candidates cannot claim reservation in Pondicherry’s government jobs.
- In a subsequent case, the Court upheld the view that migrant Scheduled Caste candidates can avail reservation benefits in Pondicherry if they are residents.
- The Appellants contended that only locals in the Union Territory should benefit from reservation, not migrants.
- The Court clarified that there was no violation of the Constitution in appointing migrant Scheduled Caste candidates in Pondicherry.
- Government Orders in Pondicherry restricted reservation benefits to Scheduled Castes originating from the Union Territory.
- The Court ruled against altering the Presidential Order through executive actions, emphasizing the importance of adherence to constitutional provisions.
- Insufficient number of Scheduled Castes candidates in Yanam and Mahe regions of Pondicherry led to candidates being sponsored from neighbouring states.
- Differences arose regarding the extension of benefits to Scheduled Caste candidates from one state in another.
- Matter was referred to a Constitution Bench for decision.
- The Constitution Bench reaffirmed that the Presidential Notification under Articles 341 and 342 cannot be changed by the Executive.
- The reservation for Scheduled Tribes in the Union Territory of Dadra and Nagar Haveli is available to migrant Scheduled Tribes.
- The requirement of residence for 10 years to claim the benefit of reservation was not supported by any material in the High Court or in the Writ Petition.
- The point regarding migrant Scheduled Tribes and the 10-year residency requirement was not raised before the High Court or in the Special Leave Petition, hence it does not merit consideration.
- Other points raised by the Senior Counsel for the Appellant need not be discussed given the proposed order.
- Gross injustice was caused to Original Name by the Appellants’ actions of not appointing him despite the advice of the Union of India and the direction of the National Commission for Scheduled Tribes.
Also Read: Supreme Court Judgement on Transfer of Mining Environmental Clearances
Decision
- The High Court’s judgment should not be interfered with.
- The appointment of the Assistant Motor Vehicle Inspector should not be delayed any further.
- The Appeal is dismissed.
Case Title: DIRECTOR TRANSPORT DEPARTMENT UNION TERRITORY ADMINISTRATION OF DADRA AND NAGAR HAVELI SILVASSA Vs. MR. ABHINAV DIPAKBHAI PATEL
Case Number: C.A. No.-004665-004665 / 2019
