IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO.  4494 OF 2006   

State of Uttaranchal … Appellant

VERSUS

Sandeep Kumar Singh  & Ors. …  Respondents

ORDER

1. The question which arises for consideration in the  

present appeal is as to whether a person belonging  

to a scheduled caste in relation to a particular State  

would  be  entitled  or  not,  to  the  benefits  or  

concessions allowed to scheduled caste candidate in  

the matter of employment, in any other State?

2. G.B.  Pant  University  of  Agriculture  &  Technology,  

Pant Nagar, Uttaranchal issued employment notice  

inviting  applications  from  candidates  all  over  the  

1

country for various posts mentioned therein.  The  

notification, inter alia, porivded:

“The vacancies are advertised under the  reservation  roster  supplied  by  the  Uttaranchal Government.”

3. Respondents applied for post of Assistant Professor  

in  different  departments  as  scheduled  caste  

reserved category candidates.  In support of their  

caste, certificates issued by the States of U.P, Bihar  

and  Tripura  were  produced.   Respondents  were  

successful  in  the  selection  conducted  by  the  

University.  Appellant, State of Uttaranchal, wrote a  

letter to the Vice-Chancellor of the University inter  

alia  stating  that  reservations  in  the  appointment  

have been made in violation of reservation policy of  

the  State  and  all  the  appointments  made  by  the  

University  in  violation  of  the reservation  policy  of  

the  State  were  accordingly  cancelled.  University,  

accordingly, withdrew the appointment letters of the  

respondents  under  the  instructions  of  the  State  

Government on the ground that they do not belong  

to scheduled caste category of State of Uttaranchal.  

2

The  respondents  filed  writ  petitions  in  the  High  

Court  challenging the termination letter.  The High  

Court  allowed the writ  petitions.   The High Court  

without  even  adverting  to  the  Constitution  Bench  

decisions  in  Marri  Chandra  Shekhar  Rao   vs.  

Dean, Seth G. S. Medical College  & Ors.1  and  

Action Committee on Issue of Caste Certificate  

to Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes in the  

State  of  Maharashtra  &  Anr.   Vs.   Union  of  

India & Anr.2 allowed the writ petitions filed by the  

respondents  and  accordingly  quashed  the  

termination orders.

4.   In  Marri Chandra Shekhar Rao, a Constitution  

Bench of this Court while interpreting Article 341 as  

well as Article 342 observed:  

“…that the expression ‘for the purposes of this  Constitution’ in Article 341 as well as in Article  342 do imply  that  the  Scheduled  Caste  and  the  Scheduled  Tribes  so  specified  would  be  entitled  to  enjoy  all  the  constitutional  rights  that are enjoyable by all the citizens as such.  Constitutional  right, e.g.,  it  has been argued  that right to migration or right to move from  

1 (1990) 3 SCC 130 2 (1994) 5 SCC 244

3

one part to another is a right given to all — to  Scheduled  Castes  or  Tribes  and  to  non- scheduled  castes  or  tribes.  But  when  a  Scheduled Caste or Tribe migrates, there is no  inhibition in migrating but when he migrates,  he  does  not  and  cannot  carry  any  special  rights  or  privileges  attributed  to  him  or  granted to him in the original State specified  for that State or area or part thereof. If that  right is not given in the migrated State it does  not  interfere  with  his  constitutional  right  of  equality or of migration or of carrying on his  trade,  business  or  profession.  Neither  Article  14,  16,  19  nor  Article  21  is  denuded  by  migration but  he must  enjoy those rights  in  accordance with the law if they are otherwise  followed in the place where he migrates. There  should  be  harmonious  construction;  harmonious in the sense that both parts or all  parts of a constitutional provision should be so  read that one part does not become nugatory  to the other or denuded to the other but all  parts  must  be  read  in  the  context  in  which  these are used. It was contended that the only  way  in  which  the  fundamental  rights  of  the  petitioner  under  Articles  14,  19(1)(d),  19(1)(e) and 19(1)(f) could be given effect to  is  by construing Article  342 in a manner  by  which a member of a Scheduled Tribe gets the  benefit of that status for the purposes of the  Constitution throughout the territory of India.  It  was  submitted  that  the  words  “for  the  purposes of this Constitution” must be given  full effect. There is no dispute about that. The  words “for the purposes of this Constitution”  must  mean  that  a  Scheduled  Caste  so  designated must have right under Articles 14,  19(1)(d),  19(1)(e) and 19(1)(f) inasmuch as  these are applicable to him in his area where  he migrates or where he goes. The expression  “in  relation  to  that  State”  would  become  

4

nugatory if in all States the special privileges  or the rights granted to Scheduled Castes or  Scheduled  Tribes  are  carried  forward.  It  will  also be inconsistent with the whole purpose of  the scheme of reservation. In Andhra Pradesh,  a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe may  require  protection  because  a  boy  or  a  child  who grows in  that  area is  inhibited  or  is  at  disadvantage.  In  Maharashtra  that  caste  or  that tribe may not be so inhibited but other  castes or tribes might be. If a boy or a child  goes to that atmosphere of Maharashtra as a  young boy or a child and goes in a completely  different  atmosphere  or  Maharashtra  where  this  inhibition  or  this  disadvantage  is  not  there,  then  he  cannot  be  said  to  have  that  reservation which will denude the children or  the  people  of  Maharashtra  belonging  to  any  segment  of  that State who may still  require  that protection. After all, it has to be borne in  mind that the protection is necessary for the  disadvantaged castes or tribes of Maharashtra  as well  as  disadvantaged castes or  tribes  of  Andhra  Pradesh.  Thus,  balancing  must  be  done as between those who need protection  and those who need no protection, i.e., who  belong to advantaged castes or tribes and who  do  not.  Treating  the  determination  under  Articles 341 and 342 of the Constitution to be  valid  for  all  over  the  country  would  be  in  negation to the very purpose and scheme and  language of Article 341 read with Article 15(4)  of the Constitution.”

 “…But  having  regard  to  the  purpose,  it  appears  to  us  that  harmonious  construction  enjoins that we should give to each expression  —”in  relation  to  that  State”  or  “for  the  purposes  of  this  Constitution”  —  its  full  meaning and give their full  effect. This must  

5

be so construed that one must not negate the  other. The construction that reservation made  in respect of the Scheduled Caste or Tribe of  that State is so determined to be entitled to all  the  privileges  and  rights  under  the  Constitution in that State would be the most  correct  way  of  reading,  consistent  with  the  language,  purpose  and  scheme  of  the  Constitution.  Otherwise,  one  has  to  bear  in  mind  that  if  reservations  to  those  who  are  treated as Scheduled Caste or Tribe in Andhra  Pradesh are also given to a boy or a girl who  migrates and gets deducted (sic inducted) in  the  State  of  Maharashtra  or  other  States  where  that  caste  or  tribe  is  not  treated  as  Scheduled  Caste  or  Scheduled  Tribe  then  either  reservation  will  have  the  effect  of  depriving  the  percentage  to  the  member  of  that caste or tribe in Maharashtra who would  be entitled  to  protection  or  it  would  denude  the  other  non-Scheduled  Castes  or  non- Scheduled  Tribes  in  Maharashtra  to  the  proportion  that  they  are  entitled  to.  This  cannot be logical or correct result designed by  the Constitution.”

5. In  Action  Committee  on  Issue  of  Caste  

Certificate  to  Scheduled  Castes  &  Scheduled  

Tribes in the State of Maharashtra & Anr.,  it is  

held:

“On a plain  reading of  clause (1)  of  Articles  341 and 342 it is manifest that the power of  the President is limited to specifying the castes  or tribes which shall, for the purposes of the  Constitution,  be  deemed  to  be  Scheduled  Castes  or  Scheduled  Tribes  in  relation  to  a  

6

State or a Union Territory,  as the case may  be. Once a notification is issued under clause  (1) of Articles 341 and 342 of the Constitution,  Parliament  can by law include  in  or  exclude  from the list of Scheduled Castes or Scheduled  Tribes, specified in the notification, any caste  or tribe but save for that limited purpose the  notification issued under clause (1), shall not  be  varied  by  any  subsequent  notification.  What is important to notice is that the castes  or tribes have to be specified in relation to a  given State or Union Territory. That means a  given caste or tribe can be a Scheduled Caste  or a Scheduled Tribe in relation to the State or  Union Territory for which it is specified.”   

It is further held:  

“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  

7

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”. This is an aspect which has  to be kept in mind and which was very much  in the minds of the Constitution-makers as is  evident from the choice of language of Articles  341 and 342 of the Constitution.”  

6. The  latter  Constitution  Bench  reiterated  the  view  

taken  by  former  Constitution  Bench  in  Marri  

Chandra Shekhar Rao case.

7. In  S. Pushpa & Ors.   vs.  Sivachanmugavelu &  

ors.3,  a three Judge Bench after referring to Marri  

Chandra  Shekhar  Rao   &  Action  Committee  

cases held:  

“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  

3 (2005) 3 SCC 1

8

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.

9

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  

10

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.”

A two Judge Bench in  Subhash Chandra & Anr.   vs.  

Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board & Ors.4  

held that the dicta in  S. Pushpa  case  is an obiter and  

does not  lay down any binding ratio. We may notice that  

a three Judge Bench in S. Pushpa  case  relied on Marri  

Chandra Shekhar Rao   &  Action Committee…  cases  

and  understood  the  ratio  of  those  judgments  in  a  

particular manner.  In our considered opinion, it was not  

open to a two Judge Bench to say that the decision of a  

three  Judge  Bench  rendered  following  the  Constitution  

Bench judgments to be per incuriam.  

8. In Central Board of Dawoodi Bohra Community  

&  Anr. vs.  State  of  Maharashtra  &  Anr.5,  a  

4 (2009) 15 SCC 458 5 (2005) 2 SCCC 673

11

Constitution Bench of this Court in categorical terms  

held that the law laid down by the Supreme Court in  

a decision delivered by a Bench of larger strength is  

binding  on  any  subsequent  Bench  of  lesser  or  

coequal strength. A Bench of lesser Coram cannot  

disagree or dissent from the view of the law taken  

by a Bench of larger Coram.  In case of doubt all  

that the Bench of lesser Coram can do is to invite  

the attention of the Chief Justice and request for the  

matter being placed for hearing before a Bench of  

larger  Coram than  the  Bench  whose  decision  has  

come up for consideration.  It will be open only for a  

Bench  of  coequal  strength  to  express  an  opinion  

doubting the correctness of the view taken by the  

earlier  Bench  of  coequal  strength,  whereupon  the  

matter may be placed for hearing before a Bench  

consisting  of  a  Coram larger  than  the  one  which  

pronounced  the  decision  laying  down  the  law the  

correctness of which is doubted.

9.  In our view, a two Judge Bench of this Court could  

not  have  held  the  decision  rendered  by  a  three  

12

Judge Bench in S. Pushpa case to be obiter and per  

incuriam.

10.  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.

11. 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.  

13

………………………………………..J. (B. SUDERSHAN REDDY)

…………………………………………J. (SURINDER SINGH NIJJAR)

NEW DELHI, October 7, 2010.  

14