advocatemmmohan

My photo

ADVOCATEMMMOHAN -  Practicing both IN CIVIL, CRIMINAL AND FAMILY LAWS,Etc.,

WELCOME TO LEGAL WORLD

WELCOME TO MY LEGAL WORLD - FOR KNOWLEDGE IN LAW & FOR LEGAL OPINIONS - SHARE THIS

Tuesday, September 24, 2013

Whether she cannot take benefit of reservation in the State of Uttarakhand because she is a Scheduled Caste (Valmiki of Punjab). =She was provisionally selected but her candidature was cancelled by the Commission vide Office Memorandum dated 4.10.2005 on the ground that she cannot take benefit of reservation in the State of Uttarakhand because she is a Scheduled Caste (Valmiki of Punjab).- The Division Bench held that after migration from Punjab, the appellant cannot be treated as a member of Scheduled Caste in the State of Uttarakhand and she is not entitled to be appointed against the post reserved for Scheduled Caste.= Whether Presidential Order issued under Article 341(1) or Article 342(1) of the Constitution has any bearing on the State’s action in making provision for the reservation of appointments or posts in favour of any backward class of citizens which, in the opinion of the State, is not adequately represented in the services under the State? - whether a person like the appellant, who is a Scheduled Caste in the State where she was born will not be entitled to the benefit of reservation after marriage in the State where her husband is living despite the fact that the husband also belongs to Scheduled Caste and the particular Caste falls in the same reserved category in the State of migration and that she is a permanent resident of that State. 16. Since the other related matter has been referred to a larger Bench, we think that it would be just and proper to refer this matter also to the larger Bench. Ordered accordingly. 17. The Registry is directed to place the papers before the Hon’ble the Chief Justice of India for consideration and appropriate order.

published in http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/imgst.aspx?filename=40822

                        IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
                        CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
                        CIVIL APPEAL No.8225  of 2013
                  (Arising out of SLP(C) No.33724 of 2011)


Ranjana Kumari                                           ... Appellant
                                   Versus
State of Uttaranchal and others
...Respondents




                               J U D G M E N T

G.S. SINGHVI, J.

1.          Leave granted.

2.    The appellant has questioned correctness of order dated  29.8.2011  by
which the Uttarakhand High Court dismissed the writ petition  filed  by  her
in the matter of appointment as District  Information  Officer  against  the
post reserved for Scheduled Caste.

3.    In response to an advertisement issued by Public  Service  Commission,
Uttaranchal (now Uttarakhand)  (for  short,  ‘the  Commission’),  which  was
published in newspaper Amar Ujala dated 25.8.2002  for  recruitment  against
833 posts in different cadres, the appellant submitted  an  application  for
appointment as District Information Officer mentioning therein that  she  is
a member of  Scheduled  Caste.  She  cleared  the  Combined  Civil  Services
Examination, 2002, preliminary as well as main.  She was interviewed by  the
Commission in May, 2005. During the interview, the appellant  was  asked  to
indicate her preferences for various advertised posts.  She  gave  her  15th
preference  for  the  post  of  District  Information   Officer.   
She   was
provisionally selected but her candidature was cancelled by  the Commission vide Office Memorandum dated 4.10.2005 on the ground that  she  cannot  take benefit of reservation  in  the  State  of  Uttarakhand  because  she  is  a Scheduled Caste (Valmiki of Punjab).
The  other  ground  indicated  by  the
Commission was that the appellant was not eligible to be  appointed  against
the advertised post because the mark sheet of her examination of Diploma  in
Journalism was issued on 26.10.2002, i.e., after the  last  date  fixed  for
receipt of application.

4.    The appellant challenged  the  decision  of  the  Commission  in  Writ
Petition No.1281(M/B)/2005 (re-numbered as Writ Petition  No.297/2007).  The
Division Bench of the High Court dismissed the same by observing that  right
to be treated as a member of reserved category is directly  attributable  to
birth and a person can claim the benefit of reservation only  in  the  State
in which he/she is born and not the State to which such person  may  migrate
after marriage or otherwise.  The Division Bench held that  after  migration
from Punjab, the appellant cannot be treated as a member of Scheduled  Caste
in the State of Uttarakhand and she is not entitled to be appointed  against
the post reserved for Scheduled Caste.
5.    Ms. Priya Hingorani, learned counsel for  the  appellant  argued  that
the impugned order is liable to be set aside because the view taken  by  the
High Court on the appellant’s entitlement to be treated as  Scheduled  Caste
of Uttarakhand is not only erroneous, but is also contrary to the  law  laid
down by this Court.  She pointed out that the  appellant  had  married  Shri
Rajesh Gill, who is Valmiki by caste and is a  resident  of  Dehradun  since
1988 and argued that the Commission committed  an  error  by  rejecting  her
plea for appointment against the post reserved for Scheduled  Caste  despite
the fact that Valmiki is recognised as a Scheduled Caste in  the  States  of
Uttar Pradesh and Uttarakhand.  Ms. Hingorani also invited our attention  to
certificates dated 10.9.2002 and 13.6.2005  issued  by  Tahsildar,  Dehradun
showing the appellant as Valmiki of Uttar  Pradesh  and  Uttaranchal  and  a
resident of Dehradun and argued that as on the  last  date  of  application,
the appellant could not be treated as a person belonging to  Punjab  because
she is a permanent resident  of  Dehradun  (Uttarakhand).   Learned  counsel
also assailed  the  other  ground  on  which  the  Commission  rejected  the
appellant’s candidature by pointing out that result of the examination  held
by Rajrshi Tandon Open University,  Allahabad  was  declared  on  15.9.2002,
i.e., one day before the last date fixed for receipt of application and  she
had produced all the documents at the time of interview.

6.    Ms. Rachana Srivastava, learned counsel for the respondents  supported
the impugned order and argued that the High Court did not commit  any  error
by negating the appellant’s challenge to the decision of the  Commission  to
cancel her candidature because she cannot be treated as  a  Scheduled  Caste
of Uttarakhand.  In support of her argument, Ms. Srivastava relied upon  the
judgments of the Constitution Bench in Marri Chandra Shekhar  Rao  v.  Dean,
Seth G. S. Medical College and others (1990) 3 SCC 130, Action Committee  on
Issue of Caste Certificate to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes  in  the
State of Maharashtra and another v. Union of India and another (1994) 5  SCC
244 and Subhash Chandra and another v. Delhi Subordinate Services  Selection
Board and others (2009) 15 SCC 458.

7.    We have  considered  the  respective  arguments  and  scrutinized  the
record.

8.    Articles 341 and 342, which  have  bearing  on  the  decision  of  the
question arising in this appeal, read as under:

       “341. Scheduled Castes.—(1) The President may  with  respect  to  any
      State or Union territory, and where it is a State  after  consultation
      with the Governor thereof, by public notification, specify the castes,
      races or tribes or parts of or groups within castes, races  or  tribes
      which shall for the purposes of this  Constitution  be  deemed  to  be
      Scheduled Castes in relation to that State or Union territory, as  the
      case may be.


      (2) Parliament may by law include in  or  exclude  from  the  list  of
      Scheduled Castes specified in a notification issued under  clause  (1)
      any caste, race or tribe or part of or group within any caste, race or
      tribe, but save as aforesaid a  notification  issued  under  the  said
      clause shall not be varied by any subsequent notification.


       342. Scheduled Tribes.— (1) The President may  with  respect  to  any
      State or Union territory, and where it is a State, after  consultation
      with the Governor thereof, by public notification, specify the  tribes
      or tribal communities or parts of or groups within  tribes  or  tribal
      communities which shall for the purpose of this Constitution be deemed
      to be Scheduled Tribes in relation to that State or  Union  territory,
      as the case may be.
      (2) Parliament may by law include in  or  exclude  from  the  list  of
      Scheduled Tribes specified in a notification issued under  clause  (1)
      any tribe or tribal community or part of or group within any tribe  or
      tribal community, but save as aforesaid a  notification  issued  under
      the said clause shall not be varied by any subsequent notification.”


9.    The above  reproduced  articles  enjoin  that  the  President  after
consultation with the Governor where the States are concerned,  by  public
notification, may specify the tribes or tribal communities or parts of  or
groups of tribes or tribal  communities,  which  shall  be  deemed  to  be
Scheduled Castes in relation to that State under Article 341 or  Scheduled
Tribes in relation to that State under Article 342.


10.   In Marri Chandra Shekhar Rao v. Dean, Seth G.S.  Medical  College  and
others (supra), the Constitution Bench of this  Court  was  called  upon  to
consider whether the petitioner, who was a member of Scheduled Tribe in  the
State of Andhra  Pradesh  was  entitled  to  admission  in  MBBS  course  in
Maharashtra  against  the  quota  reserved  for   Scheduled   Tribes.    The
petitioner was born in Tenali in the State of Andhra  Pradesh  and  belonged
to the Gouda  community  also  known  as  “Goudu”  which  is  recognised  as
“Scheduled Tribe” in  the  State  of  Andhra  Pradesh.  The  father  of  the
petitioner was issued  a  Scheduled  Tribe  Certificate  by  the  Tahsildar,
Tenali, Andhra Pradesh. He was appointed in the  Fertilizer  Corporation  of
India,  a  public  sector  undertaking.  On  the  19th   June,   1978,   the
petitioner's father joined  Rashtriya  Chemicals  and  Fertilizers  Ltd.,  a
Government of India undertaking, under  the  quota  reserved  for  Scheduled
Tribes. He was posted in Bombay. As a consequence,  the  petitioner  started
living  in Bombay.  He completed his education in Bombay. For  the  academic
year 1989-90, he submitted  applications  for  admission  in  three  medical
colleges run by the Bombay Municipal Corporation  and  one  medical  college
run by the State of Maharashtra and sought the  benefit  of  reservation  in
favour of Scheduled Tribes.  His claim was not accepted on the  ground  that
he does not belong to Scheduled Tribe of Maharashtra.  After  examining  the
scheme of the relevant Constitutional provisions, this Court observed:

      “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.


      It has, however, to be borne in mind that a  man  does  not  cease  to
      belong to his caste by migration to a better or more socially free and
      liberal atmosphere. But if sufficiently long time is spent in socially
      advanced area then the inhibitions and handicaps suffered by belonging
      to a socially  disadvantageous  community  do  not  continue  and  the
      natural talent of a man or a woman or a boy or girl gets full scope to
      flourish. These, however, are problems of social adjustment  i.e.  how
      far protection has to be  given  to  a  certain  segment  of  socially
      disadvantaged community and for how long to become equal  with  others
      is a matter of delicate social adjustment. These must be  so  balanced
      in the mosaic of the country’s integrity that no section or  community
      should cause detriment or discontentment to other community or part of
      community or section. Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes  belonging
      to a particular area of the country must be given protection  so  long
      as and to the extent they are entitled in order to become  equal  with
      others. But equally those who go to other  areas  should  also  ensure
      that they make way for the disadvantaged and disabled of that part  of
      the community who suffer from disabilities in those  areas.  In  other
      words, Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes say of Andhra Pradesh  do
      require necessary protection as balanced  between  other  communities.
      But  equally  the  Scheduled  Castes  and  Scheduled  Tribes  say   of
      Maharashtra in the instant case, do require protection in the State of
      Maharashtra, which will have to be in balance to other communities.”




11.   In Action Committee on Issue of Caste Certificate to Scheduled  Castes
and Scheduled Tribes in the State of Maharashtra and  another  v.  Union  of
India and another (supra), another Constitution Bench considered  a  similar
issue. The question framed in that case was:

      “Where a person belonging to  a  caste  or  tribe  specified  for  the
      purposes of the Constitution to be a Scheduled Caste  or  a  Scheduled
      Tribe in relation to State A migrates to State  B  where  a  caste  or
      tribe with the same nomenclature is specified for the purposes of  the
      Constitution to be a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe in  relation
      to that State B, will that person be entitled to claim the  privileges
      and benefits admissible to the  persons  belonging  to  the  Scheduled
      Castes and/or Scheduled Tribes in State B.”



The aforesaid question  was  considered  in  the  backdrop  of  certificate,
circulars and letters issued by the Government of  India  and  consequential
instructions issued by the State  of  Maharashtra  indicating  that  members
belonging to the Scheduled Castes  and  Scheduled  Tribes  of  other  States
shall not be entitled to the benefits and privileges accorded by  the  State
of Maharashtra unless he or she is shown to be  permanent  resident  of  the
State of Maharashtra on 10.8.1950  in  the  case  of  Scheduled  Castes  and
6.9.1950 in the case of Scheduled Tribes.  The Constitution  Bench  referred
to the relevant Constitutional provisions including Articles  341  and  342,
the judgment of the earlier Constitution  Bench  in  Marri  Chandra  Shekhar
Rao’s case and observed:

      “We may add that considerations for specifying a particular  caste  or
      tribe or class for inclusion in the list of Scheduled  Castes/Schedule
      Tribes or backward classes in a given State would depend on the nature
      and extent of disadvantages and  social  hardships  suffered  by  that
      caste, tribe or class in that State which may be totally  non  est  in
      another  State  to  which  persons  belonging  thereto  may   migrate.
      Coincidentally it may be that  a  caste  or  tribe  bearing  the  same
      nomenclature is specified in two States but the considerations on  the
      basis of which they have been specified may be totally  different.  So
      also the degree of disadvantages of various elements which  constitute
      the input for specification may also be totally different.  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”.
12.    The  issue  was  again  considered  in  S.  Pushpa   and   others   v
Sivachanmugavelu and others (2005) 3 SCC 1.  The facts  of  that  case  were
that   the Directorate of Education, Government of  Pondicherry  had  issued
an advertisement for making  recruitment  of  350  General  Central  Service
Group "C" posts of Secondary Grade of  which  56  posts  were  reserved  for
Scheduled Castes. In response to the advertisement, the employment  exchange
sponsored the names of candidates of various categories including  Scheduled
Caste. The employment exchange also sponsored some names of Scheduled  Caste
candidates from neighbouring employment exchanges as  sufficient  number  of
Scheduled Caste candidates were not available in Yanam and  Mahe  region  of
the Union territory  of  Pondicherry.  Out  of  55  selected  candidates  of
Scheduled Caste, 29 produced community certificates from the Governments  of
Tamil Nadu, Andhra Pradesh and Kerala, based on which the revenue  authority
of Pondicherry had issued community certificates to them. The  remaining  26
candidates produced community certificates from  the  revenue  authority  of
Pondicherry.  The  respondents  challenged  the   selection   of   aforesaid
Scheduled Caste candidates mainly on the ground  that  a  migrant  Scheduled
Caste candidate belonging to another State is not eligible  for  appointment
on a post which is reserved for  Scheduled  Caste  candidate  of  the  Union
Territory of Pondicherry. The Central Administrative  Tribunal  relied  upon
the judgments in Marri Chandra Shekhar Rao’s case and  Action  Committee  on
Issue of Caste Certificate to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes  in  the
State of Maharashtra and another v. Union of India and another  (supra)  and
held that the Scheduled Castes  who  migrated  to  the  Union  Territory  of
Pondicherry after the  issuance  of  Presidential  notification,  which  has
specified Scheduled Castes in terms  of  Article  341  of  the  Constitution
cannot claim the benefit of reservation in the services  of  the  Government
of Pondicherry.  Accordingly,  the  selection  and  appointment  of  migrant
Scheduled Caste candidates was set aside  and  a  direction  was  issued  to
review the selection process. The three Judge Bench of this  Court  referred
to the judgments of the Constitution Bench in Marri  Chandra  Shekhar  Rao’s
case and the Action Committee’s case and observed:

      “Part XVI of the Constitution deals with special  provisions  relating
      to certain classes and contains Articles 330 to 341. Articles 330  and
      332 make provision for reservation of seats in the House of the People
      and Legislative Assemblies of the States respectively,  for  Scheduled
      Castes and Scheduled Tribes. Similar provisions  have  been  made  for
      Anglo-Indian community in Articles 331 and 333. Article  338  provides
      that there will be a Commission for the Scheduled Castes to  be  known
      as National Commission for the Scheduled Castes and it  also  provides
      for its composition, powers and duties.  Clause  (2)  of  Article  330
      provides that the number of seats reserved  in  the  States  or  Union
      Territories for Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes  shall  bear,  as
      nearly as may be, the same proportion to the number of seats  allotted
      to that State or Union Territory in the House of  the  People  as  the
      population of the Scheduled Castes in the State or Union Territory  or
      of the Scheduled Tribes in the State or Union Territory, as  the  case
      may be, in respect of which seats are so reserved, bears to the  total
      population of the State or  Union  Territory.  Similar  provision  for
      reservation of seats in favour of SC/ST in the Legislative Assembly of
      any  State  is  contained  in  clause  (3)  of  Article  332  of   the
      Constitution. Therefore, in order to ascertain  the  number  of  seats
      which have to be reserved for Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes  in
      the House of  the  People  or  in  the  Legislative  Assembly,  it  is
      absolutely essential to ascertain  precisely  the  population  of  the
      Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes in the State or Union  Territory.
      A fortiori, for the purpose  of  identification,  it  becomes  equally
      important to know who  would  be  deemed  to  be  Scheduled  Caste  in
      relation to that State or Union Territory. This  exercise  has  to  be
      done strictly in accordance with the Presidential Order and a  migrant
      Scheduled Caste of another State cannot be  taken  into  consideration
      otherwise it may affect the number of seats which have to be  reserved
      in the House of the People or Legislative Assembly. Though, a  migrant
      SC/ST person of another State may not be deemed to be  so  within  the
      meaning of Articles 341 and 342 after migration to another  State  but
      it does not mean that he ceases to be an SC/ST altogether and  becomes
      a member of a forward caste.


      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 recognised 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 recognised 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  UT  of
      Pondicherry  having  adopted  a  policy  of  the  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.”


13.   In the case of  Subhash  Chandra  and  another  v.  Delhi  Subordinate
Services Selection Board and  others  (supra),
private  respondents  and/or their parents are migrants to Delhi.
In  their  native  places,  they  were
declared to be the members of the Scheduled Castes.
The  Ministry  of  Home
Affairs issued a circular on or about 2.5.1975, in terms whereof the  manner
in which the claim of a person belonging to Scheduled  Castes  or  Scheduled
Tribes is required to be verified was laid down.
Such  verification  was  to
be made having regard to the Presidential  order  specifying  the  Scheduled
Castes and Scheduled Tribes in relation to  the  concerned  State.
National
Capital Territory of Delhi issued clarification by  way  of  two  circulars.
Pursuant to directions issued by the Union Territory, an  advertisement  was
issued  by  the  State  Subordinate  Selection  Board   containing   general
instructions  that  Scheduled  Caste  and  OBC   candidates   must   furnish
certificates issued by the competent  authority  of  Government  of  NCT  of
Delhi issued on or before the closing date of receipt of application  forms.
The appellants questioned the legality  and/or  validity  of  the  circulars
issued by the National Capital Territory of Delhi by claiming that they  are
entitled to the benefits of the Presidential  Notification  declaring  their
caste to be Scheduled Castes but keeping in view the nature of  verification
specified by reason of  the  aforementioned  circulars.
The  Government  of
National Capital Territory contended  that  the  notification  involved  two
sets of castes/categories  certificate  one  in  relation  to  the  original
inhabitants and the other relating to the migrants.
The  petitioners  filed
Writ Petition challenging circulars before the High Court.
By  relying  upon
the ratio of Marri Chandra Shekhar Rao’s case and Action Committee on  Issue
of Caste Certificate to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes in  the  State
of Maharashtra v. Union of India (supra), the High Court dismissed the  writ
petition. A two Judge Bench of this Court reversed the  order  of  the  High
Court and declared that the migrants are not  entitled  to  the  benefit  of
reservation in the Union Territories. The  two  Judge  Bench  also  declared
that  the  view  expressed  by  the  three  Judge  Bench  in  S.  Pushpa  v.
Sivachanmugavelu (supra) was per incuriam.

14.   The matter again came up for consideration before a  two  Judge  Bench
in State of Uttaranchal v. Sandeep Kumar Singh (2010) 12 SCC  794.  The  two
Judge Bench did not approve the approach adopted by another two Judge  bench
in Subhash Chandra’s case and referred the matter to larger Bench by  making
the following observations:

      “In our view, a two Judge Bench of this Court could not have held  the
      decision rendered by a three Judge Bench  in  S.  Pushpa  case  to  be
      obiter and per incuriam.

      A very important question of law  as  to  interpretation  of  Articles
      16(4), 341 and 342 arises for consideration in  this  appeal.
 Whether
      Presidential Order issued under Article 341(1) or  Article  342(1)  of   the Constitution has any bearing  on  the  State’s  action  in  making   provision for the reservation of appointments or posts  in  favour  of   any backward class of citizens which, in the opinion of the State,  is  not adequately represented in the services under the State? 
The extent
      and nature of interplay and interaction among Articles  16(4),  341(1)
      and 342(1) of the Constitution is required to be resolved.

      For the aforesaid  reasons,  therefore,  in  our  view,  it  would  be
      appropriate that this case is placed  before  the  Hon’ble  the  Chief
      Justice of India for constituting a Bench of appropriate strength. The
      registry is, accordingly, directed to  place  the  papers  before  the
      Hon’ble the Chief Justice of India for appropriate directions.”

15.   The question arising in this appeal  is  
whether  a  person  like  the
appellant, who is a Scheduled Caste in the State where  she  was born  will not be entitled to the benefit of reservation after marriage  in  the  State where her husband is living despite the fact that the husband  also  belongs to Scheduled Caste and the particular  Caste  falls  in  the  same  reserved category in the State of migration and that she is a permanent  resident  of that State.

16.   Since the other related matter has been referred to  a  larger  Bench,
we think that it would be just and proper to refer this matter also  to  the larger Bench. Ordered accordingly.

17.   The Registry is directed to place the papers before  the  Hon’ble  the
Chief Justice of India for consideration and appropriate order.
                                              …………………………..J.
                                              (G.S. SINGHVI)




New Delhi;                                   ………………………….J.
September 23, 2013.                               (V. GOPALA GOWDA)
-----------------------
14


No comments:

Post a Comment

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.