SATYAJIT KUMAR vs. THE STATE OF JHARKHAND

REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4038 OF 2022 Satyajit Kumar & Ors. …Appellant(s) Versus The State of Jharkhand & Ors. …Respondent(s) With  CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4039 OF 2022 CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4040 OF 2022 CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4041 OF 2022 CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4042 OF 2022 CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4043 OF 2022 CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4044 OF 2022 CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4045 OF 2022 CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4046 OF 2022 CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4047 OF 2022 CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4048 OF 2022 CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4049 OF 2022 CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4050 OF 2022 CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4079 OF 2022 J U D G M E N T M.R. SHAH, J. 1.0. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by R Natarajan Date: 2022.08.02 15:45:58 IST Reason: common judgment and order dated 21.09.2020 passed in Writ Petition No.1387 of 2017 and other allied writ Page   1  of   107 petitions   and   connected   applications,   by   which,   the High Court has allowed said writ petitions and has observed,   held   and   declared   that   the   Notification No.5938   and   the   Order   No.5939   dated   14.07.2016 issued by the State of Jharkhand and Advertisement No.21   of   2016   dated   28.12.2016   modified   by   the Advertisement   No.21   of   2016   published   on 04.12.2017,   by   the   State   Government   through Department of Personnel, Administrative Reforms and Rajbhasha inviting application for appointment to the posts of Trained Graduate Teacher in the Government Secondary   Schools   to   the   extent   of   making   100% reservation   for   the   local   candidates   /   residents   of Thirteen Scheduled Areas in the State of Jharkhand as illegal,   ultra   vires   and   unconstitutional   and consequently   has   quashed   the   appointments   of   the Trained   Graduate   Teachers   made   pursuant   to   the aforesaid   advertisement,   in   the   Scheduled   Districts relating to the local residents of those Districts, the original   respondents   –   candidates   belonging   to   the Thirteen   Scheduled   Districts   have   preferred   present Page   2  of   107 appeals. 2.0. Civil Appeal No.4043 of 2022 has been preferred by the   petitioners   who   were   not   party   before   the   High Court challenging the action of the State Government in not appointing them. It is the case on behalf of the petitioners   that   the   State   Government   has misinterpreted the judgment and order passed by the High Court passed in Writ Petition No.1387 of 2017. It is their case that the dispute before the High Court was   with   regard   to   the   appointment   of   the   Trained Graduate   Teachers   and   advertisement   Notification No.21   of   2016.   However,   so   far   as   petitioners   are concerned,   according   to   them,   they   are   eligible applicants of the advertisement nos.1 of 2017 and 2 of 2017   for   the   post   of   Lower   Divisional   Clerks (Collectorate   cadre)   –   District   Level   Post   Panchayat Secretary­  District  Level Posts   and   Lower  Divisional Clerks­ State Level Post, State Stenographer – State Level Post and in no manner concerned with the issue agitated before the High Court. It is the case on behalf Page   3  of   107 of   the   petitioners   that   they   are   awaiting   the   final results with respect to the aforesaid posts and have also   undergone   document   verification   procedure carried   out   by   the   Jharkhand   Staff   Selection Committee in the year 2019. 2.1. Civil Appeal No.4048 of 2022 has been preferred by the State of Jharkhand challenging the order passed by the High Court dated 4.3.2022 passed in Contempt Case   No.   109   of   2021.   It   is   to   be   noted   that   Civil Appeal   No.4048   of   2022   is   with   respect   to   the candidates belonging to the Non­Scheduled Districts who earlier filed writ petitions before the High Court and   the   High  Court   directed   to   issue   appointments orders   to   the   candidates   belonging   to   the   Non­ Scheduled Districts. It is required to be noted that by the interim order passed by the High Court further contempt proceedings before the High Court have been stayed. 2.2. Civil Appeal No.4050 of 2022 has been preferred by Page   4  of   107 the   candidates  belonging  to  the   Scheduled   Districts and who applied as a Trained Teacher pursuant to the aforesaid   advertisement   and   who   are   not   appointed after interim order passed by the High Court dated 18.09.2019. 3.0. Facts leading to the present appeals in a nutshell are as under: 3.1. Pursuant   to   the   Presidential   Notification   dated 11.04.2007 13 Districts in the State of Jharkhand had been   declared   as   Scheduled   Areas.     That   the   said Notification   had   been   issued   in   exercise   of   powers conferred by the sub­paragraph (2) of paragraph 6 of the   Fifth   Schedule   to   the   Constitution   of   India. Pursuant to the said Notification, following Districts in the   State   of   Jharkhand   had   been   declared   as Scheduled Areas / Districts. 1. Ranchi District. 2. Lohardagga District. 3. Gumla District. 4. Simdega District. 5. Latehar District. 6. East­Singhbhum District. Page   5  of   107 7. West­Singhbhum District. 8. Saraikela­ Kharsawan District. 9. Sahebganj District. 10. Dumka District. 11. Pakur District. 12. Jamtara District. 13. Palamu District­ Rabda and Bakoriya Panchayats of Satbarwa Block. 14. Godda   District­   Sunderpahari   and   Boarijor Blocks.  (hereinafter referred to as the “Scheduled Areas”). 3.2. That   the   State   Government   issued   “Jharkhand Government   (Recruitment   of   Teachers   and   Non­ Teaching Staff in Secondary Schools & their Service and Condition) Rules, 2015 by means of which the conditions / qualifications for appointment of teachers had been prescribed, vide Notification dated 1.3.2016. That pursuant to the order passed by the High Court in Writ Petition (PIL) No. 4806 of 2016, vide Circular dated   18.04.2016   the   State   Government   prescribed definition of “Local Resident of Jharkhand”. As per the said Circular, the Local Resident of Jharkhand would Page   6  of   107 be deemed such Indian Citizens who would fulfill any one condition out of the following ……. “(i). he   would   have   been   residing   within   the geographical limits of the State of Jharkhand and either his own name or name of his forefather would have been lying recorded in Survey Khata. In the cases   of   landless,   he   would   be   identified   by   the concerning Gram Sabha which would be based on language, culture & traditions prevailing in the State of Jharkhand. (ii)would have been residing within the geographical limits of the State of Jharkhand for the   past 30 years or more due to any trade, employment and other reasons and  would have earned immovable property or such person has wife/husband /child and affirm commitment to stay in Jharkhand State. (iii)   would   have   been   appointed   &   working officer/employee under the Government of State of Jharkhand  / institutions  being run/recognized  by the State Government, Corporation etc.  Or   has wife/husband /child and affirm commitment to stay in Jharkhand state. (iv)Officer/employee   of   the   Government   of   India, working in the  State of Jharkhand or have 188 wife/husband /child and affirm  commitment   to stay in Jharkhand state. (v)Person   appointed   at   any   constitutional   or statutory posts in  the  State of Jharkhand  or have wife/husband /child and affirm  commitment   to stay in Jharkhand state. (vi) Such person who would have born in the State of Jharkhand and completed his whole education upto Matriculation   or   its   equivalent   level   from   the recognized   institutions   established   in   the   state   of Jharkhand   &   affirm   commitment   to   stay   in Jharkhand state.” 3.3. That thereafter, the State Government came out with Page   7  of   107 Notification   No.   5938   and   Order   No.   5939   dated 14.7.2016   directing   that   in   Thirteen   Scheduled Districts   of   the   State,   the   local   residents   of   the concerned Districts (Thirteen Scheduled Districts) only shall be eligible to be appointed on the District Cadre Class III and Class IV posts, for a period of ten (10) years from the date of publication of the Notification. It appears   that   said   order   had   been   issued   by   the Governor of Jharkhand in exercise of powers conferred under sub­paragraph(1) of  paragraph  5 of  the   Fifth Schedule   of   the   Constitution   of   India.   In   the   order dated 14.07.2016 it is observed as under: “ And whereas, the scheduled Area in the State are characterised by low Human Development Indices, backwardness,   remoteness   poverty   and   whereas the social indicators of the Scheduled Areas are on an   average,   inferior   to   the   average   of   social indicators in the State due to uneven topography, lack of water resources, loss in canopy coverage of forest and uncontrolled rapid industrialization; And   whereas,   recognizing   the   factors   identified above, the Tribal Advisory Council of Jharkhand has recommended   issuing   of   a   notification   by   the Governor for suspension of eligibility conditions as enshrined   in   various   appointment   rules   for   the appointment of class 3 and class 4 posts at district level  for a period  of  10  years  in the  13  districts namely­   Sahebganj,   Pakur,   (Dumka,   Jamtara, Latehar,   Ranchi,   Khunti,   Gumla,   Lohardagga simdega,   East   Singhbhum,   West   Singhbhum   and Page   8  of   107 Sraikela­kharsawan for appointment of cent­percent District level class ­3 and class­4 posts by the local residents of the district concerned; And Whereas, the Governor of Jharkhand in order to improve   the   quality   of   people   in   the   Scheduled Areas,   by   providing   additional   opportunities   of employment,   in   favour   of   the   local   residents   of Scheduled Areas .” 3.4. That thereafter, further order came to be published on 11.11.2016   specifically   making   it   clear   that   in compliance of Notification No.5938 dated 14.07.2016, local residents of concerned Districts only are deemed eligible for appointment in the vacant post of District­ Level Class III and Class IV in 13 notified Districts out of 24 Districts of the State and appointment of people from other Districts/ other States is not permissible in these Districts. Meaning  thereby, it was made clear that   the   candidate   belonging   to   the   Non­Scheduled Districts cannot participate in the process of selection in the Scheduled Districts. 3.5. That pursuant to the advertisement no. 21 of 2016 published on 28.12.2016 as modified by advertisement dated 4.2.2017 which was issued in pursuance of the Notification   No.5938   dated   14.07.2016,   applications Page   9  of   107 were   invited   for   filling   up   17,784   Trained   Graduate Teachers out of which 13,398 posts (75% posts of total advertised   posts)   were   to   be   filled   up   by   direct recruitment and remaining 25% posts i.e., 4386 posts were   reserved   for   primary   teachers.   The   said advertisement   was   issued   through   Jharkhand   State Staff Selection Commission (hereinafter referred to as the “JSSC”). In the advertisement in para 5(iii), it was stated   that   so   far   as   vacancies   in   the   Scheduled Districts   and   State   are   concerned,   only   the   local residents of those Scheduled Districts shall be entitled to apply.  As per the para 5(i) of the advertisement, a candidate could apply against the vacancy in only one District of his / her choice. At this stage, it is required to be noted that in all 8423 posts were advertised for filling   up   the   vacancies   in   the   Thirteen   Scheduled Districts   in   the   State,   whereas   9149   posts   were advertised for the remaining non­scheduled districts in the State. 3.6. Several   candidates   applied   for   the   posts   and Page   10  of   107 undergone   the   selection   process.   The   results   were published and process of appointments were initiated by the State Government. Candidates belonging to the Non­Scheduled Districts who were prevented making application for the vacancy in the Scheduled Districts, preferred writ petition before the High Court by way of present   writ   petition   challenging   the     constitutional validity   of   the   Notification   and   order   issued   by   the State Government bearing Notification No. 5938 and Order No.5939 dated 14.07.2016, by which, only the local residents of the concerned Scheduled Districts were   made   eligible   for   appointment   on   the   District Cadre Class III and Class IV posts for a period of 10 years.   The   original   writ   petitioners­   candidates belonging   to   the   Non­Scheduled   Candidates   also challenged   the   subsequent   Advertisement   No.21   of 2016, as modified by the Advertisement No.21 of 2016, inviting applications for appointment to the posts of Trained   Graduate   Teacher   in   the   Government Secondary Schools more particularly, para 5(iii) of the said advertisement by which, it was stated that the so Page   11  of   107 far as vacancies in the Scheduled Districts of the State are   concerned,   only   the       of   those local   residents Scheduled Districts shall be eligible to apply. 3.7. By order dated 21.2.2019 the Division Bench of the High Court directed that the notices be published in the   Daily   Newspaper   having   wide   circulation   about institutions   of   writ   petitions   so   that   the   person interested   may   intervene   in   the   writ   petitions. Pursuant   to   such   notices,   several   interlocutory applications / intervener applications came to be filed, which came to be allowed by the High Court. Taking   into   consideration   the   question   of Constitutional importance involved in these matters, by order dated 18.09.2019 the Division Bench of the High Court referred the matter to be decided by the Larger Bench. By the same order dated 18.09.2019, the   High   Court   stayed   further   implementation   and operation of the impugned Notification No.5938 and Order   No.5939   dated   14.7.2016,   subject   to   the Page   12  of   107 appointments already made, if any.  3.8 It was the case on behalf of the original writ petitioners – candidates belonging to the Non­Scheduled Districts that   the   aforesaid   Notification   issued   in   exercise   of powers conferred in para 5(i) of the Fifth Schedule of the Constitution of India is violative of Articles 14 & 16 of   the   Constitution   of   India.   Article   13(2)   of   the Constitution   of   India  was   also   pressed   into   service. Heavy   reliance   was   placed   on   Article   16(2)   of   the Constitution of India. It was submitted on behalf of the original writ petitioners that in the garb of the   non­ clause in para 5(i) of the Fifth Scheduled of obstante   the Constitution, the Governor cannot infringe and / or affect fundamental rights guaranteed under Part III of the Constitution and that there cannot be any 100% reservation,   so   as   to   make   only   residents   of   a particular   area   to   be   eligible   for   appointment   to   a public   post.   Heavy   reliance   was   placed   on   the decisions of this Court in the case of   Kailash Chand Sharma Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors . reported in Page   13  of   107 (2002) 6 SCC 562;   A.V.S Narsimha Rao & Ors Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh & Anr.  reported in  (1969) 1 SCC 839; Dr. Pradeep Jain & Ors Vs. Union of India & Ors.  reported in ( 1984) 3 SCC 654;   Rajesh Kumar Gupta & Ors. Vs. State  of UP & Ors.   reported  in   (2005) 5 SCC 172; State of Orissa & Ors. Vs. Sudhir Kumar Bishwal  &  Ors.   reported  in   1994   Supp (3) SCC 245   and   Indra Sawhney & Ors. Vs. Union of  reported in  in India & Ors. 1992 Supp (3) SCC 217,  support   of   their   submissions   that   there   cannot   be 100%   reservation   for   the   local   residents   and   such 100%   reservation   for   the   local   residents   and   /   or reservations on the basis of residence shall be hit by Article   16   (3)   of   the   Constitution   of   India.   On   the constitutional validity of the Notification making 100% reservation for the local residents in exercise of powers under para 5 of the Fifth Schedule of the Constitution of   India,   heavy   reliance   was   placed   on   recent Constitutional Bench decision of this Court in the case of   Chebrolu Leela Prasad Rao & Ors Vs. State of Page   14  of   107 A.P. & Ors  reported in  (2021) 11 SCC 401 .  4.0. On the other hand, it was the case on behalf of the State as well as successful candidates belonging to the Scheduled Districts that the Notification making 100% reservation for local residents of the Scheduled Areas was / is absolutely within the scope, ambit and powers of   the   Governor   in   exercise   of   para   5   of   the   Fifth Schedule to the Constitution of India. 4.1. It   was   submitted   that   for   the   upliftment   of   local residents belonging to the Scheduled Areas / Districts such a  reservation   is  permissible.  It was   submitted that  the  object  and  purpose  of  declaring Scheduled Districts / Areas under Fifth Schedule is to uplift and for the betterment of local residents of the Scheduled Areas. It was also contended on behalf of the State and successful   candidates   belonging   to   the   Scheduled Areas/ Districts that special powers under the Fifth Schedule are not subject to restriction under Article 16 of the Constitution of India. Heavy reliance was placed Page   15  of   107 on the  non­obstante  clause. It was submitted that para 5(i) of the Fifth Schedule of the Constitution of India begins   with   the   words   “notwithstanding   contained anything   in   this   Constitution”.   It   was   further submitted   that   even   the   Governor   may   by   public notification direct that any particular Act of Parliament shall not apply to a Scheduled Area; powers conferred on the Governor with respect to Scheduled Areas are special   powers   and   therefore,   such   powers   are   not subject to any of the restrictions contained in Article 16 and / or any other provisions of the Constitution of India. 5.0. By the impugned common judgment and order and following the decision of the Constitutional Bench of this Court in the case of  Chebrolu Leela Prasad Rao (supra) ,   the   High   Court   has   declared   the   aforesaid Notification   and   the   aforesaid   Advertisement unconstitutional   and   /  or  ultra  vires,  to  the   extent making 100% reservation for the local residents of the Scheduled   Areas.   By   the   impugned   judgment   and Page   16  of   107 order,   the   High   Court   has   also   held   that   the Notification and the Order are violative of Article 16(3) and 35(a) of the Constitution of India, as such powers are vested only in the Parliament and not with the State Legislature. By the impugned common judgment and order, the High Court has also quashed para 5(iii) of   the   Advertisement   No.21   of   2016   published   on 28.12.2016   as   modified   by   the   advertisement   dated 4.2.2017 to the extent it provided that as against the vacant   posts   of   Trained   Graduate   Teacher   in   the Scheduled Districts, only the local residents of those Scheduled District can apply. In the result, the High Court has quashed all the appointments of the Trained Graduate   Teachers   made   pursuant   to   the   aforesaid advertisement, in the Scheduled Districts relating to the local residents  of  those Districts only.  That the High Court has further directed that all the 8423 posts of   Trained   Graduate   Teacher   in   the   Government Secondary Schools in the Scheduled Districts of the State   of   Jharkhand,   be   advertised   afresh  and   fresh selection process be undertaken in accordance with Page   17  of   107 law. The High Court also further clarified that all those candidates who were eligible to apply in response to the Advertisement No.21 of 2016, shall be entitled to apply in the fresh selection process, irrespective of any barrier, if any, as to their age. The High Court has also made it abundantly clear that   by   the   ad­interim   order   dated   18.09.2019, selection process was never stayed by the Court in the Non­Scheduled   Districts   and   there   was   no   stay   for appointments   on   any   post   in   the   Non­Scheduled Districts. According to the High Court by impugned common judgment and order has allowed all the writ petitions accordingly.  5.1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned common judgment and order passed by the High Court of   Jharkhand   declaring   Notification   No.   5938   and Order No.5939 dated 14.07.2016 as unconstitutional and ultra vires to Articles 14, 16(2), 16(3) and 35(a­i) of the Constitution of India and  consequently quashing Page   18  of   107 para   5(iii)   of   the   Advertisement   No.   21   of   2016 published   on   28.12.2016   as   modified   by   the Advertisement   dated   4.2.2017   to   the   extent   of providing 100% reservation for the local residents of the   Thirteen   Scheduled   Districts   only,   selected candidates belonging to the Scheduled Areas – local residents of Scheduled Areas / Districts have preferred the present Appeals. 6.0. Dr.   Rajeev   Dhavan,   Shri   Vikas   Singh,   Shri   R. Venkataramani,   Ms.   Vibha   Datta   Makhija,   learned Senior   Advocates   have   appeared   on   behalf   of   the successful   candidates   belonging   to   the   Scheduled Areas. We have heard Shri Kapil Sibal and Shri Sunil Kumar learned Senior Advocates appearing on behalf of the State of Jharkhand. We have heard Shri Ranjit Kumar   and   Shri   Gopal   Sankaranarayanan,   learned Senior Advocates appearing on behalf of the contesting respondents   –   original   petitioners   –   candidates belonging to the Non­Scheduled Areas / Districts. We have   also   heard   Shri   Ajit   Kumar   Sinha,   Shri   Colin Page   19  of   107 Gonsalves and Shri Pallav Shishodia, learned Senior Advocates appearing on behalf of the other respective parties/ interveners. 7.0. Shri   R.   Venkataramani,   learned   Senior   Advocate appearing   on   behalf   of   some   of   the   successful candidates   belonging   to   the   Scheduled   Districts   / Areas   has  vehemently  submitted  that  while   passing the impugned common judgment and order the High Court has not properly appreciated and considered the object  and   purpose   of   declaration   of   the   Scheduled Areas   in   exercise   of   powers   conferred   under   Fifth Schedule   and   the   object   and   purpose   conferring special powers to the Governor under para 5 of the Fifth Schedule to the Constitution of India. 7.1. It is further submitted that the High Court has also not properly appreciated and considered the reasons for   which   the   Notification   and   the   order   dated 14.07.2016 was issued by the Governor of State. Page   20  of   107 7.2. It is further submitted that the Notification and the order   dated   14.07.2016   shows   that   the   Scheduled Districts in the State of Jharkhand are characterized by   low   human   development   indices,   backwardness, remoteness,   poverty   and   they   are   on   an   average inferior  to  the  social indicators  in the   State  due  to uneven topography, lack of water resources, loss in canopy   average   of   forest   and   uncontrolled   rapid industrialization.  That due to the  aforesaid grounds and the reasons, the Notification had to be issued by the   Governor   for   protecting   the   interest   of   the residents of the Scheduled Districts. 7.3. Taking   us   to   the   Article   29,   38   and   46   of   the Constitution   of   India   and   reliance   being   placed   on Article 244 of the Constitution of India which deals with the administration of Scheduled Areas and Tribal Areas   to   which   Fifth   Schedule   of   the   Constitution applies,   it   is   vehemently   submitted   that   the   said administration has to take special care of the interests of   minorities   and   the   people   belonging   to   the Page   21  of   107 Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and the weaker sections of the society, and to protect them from social injustice and all forms of exploitation. It is submitted that therefore, Notification / order dated 14.07.2016 issued by the Governor in exercise of powers conferred under   para   5(i)   of   the   Fifth   Scheduled   of   the Constitution of India which was issued to protect the interest of local residents of the Scheduled Areas and for their upliftment, ought not to have been held to be ultra   vires   and   /   or   unconstitutional   by   the   High Court.  It  is  submitted  that  the   impugned  judgment and order passed by the High Court has the effect of taking away special rights conferred on the Governor, conferred under para 5 of the of the Fifth Schedule of the Constitution of India. 7.4. It   is   further   submitted   that   Article   16(2)   of   the Constitution of India prohibits discrimination on the grounds “only” of religion, race, caste, sex, descent, place   of   birth,   residence   and   these   expressions   are preceded   by   the   word   “only”   and   followed   by   the Page   22  of   107 expression   “or   any   of   them”   which   play   a   very important   role.   It   is   submitted   by   Shri     R. Venkataramani, learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf   of   petitioners   that   successful   candidates belonged   to  the   Scheduled  Area,  though  it  was  the contention   on behalf  of  the   original  petitioners   that discrimination is prohibited on the ground mentioned in Article 16(2) and 16(3) and if any protective action is required to be taken under Articles 29, 38 and 46 of the Constitution of India the same is taken on any or more   of   those   grounds,   in   combination   with   other factors and Article 16(2) of the Constitution of India shall   not   be   attracted,   even   if   it     results   in   some discrimination to the other set of citizens. 7.5 Shri   R.   Venkataramani,   learned   Senior   Advocate appearing   on   behalf   of   petitioners   has   further submitted   that   Governor   of   the   State   is   fully competent under para 5(i) of the Fifth Schedule of the Constitution   of   India   to   issue   notification   making reservation in favour of the residents of the Scheduled Page   23  of   107 Districts in order to secure justice, social, economic and political to the residents suffering variously in the backdrop   of   the   conditions   mentioned   in   the Notification. It is urged that under Article 15(4) of the Constitution of India, the State is empowered to make special provisions for the advancement of any socially and educationally backward classes of citizens or for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, as such there is no violation of Articles 14 & 16 of the Constitution of India.   It   is   further   submitted   by   Shri   R. Venkataramani,   learned   Senior   Advocate   that   the Scheduled   Area   cannot   be   equated   with   the   non­ scheduled   areas.   It   is   submitted   that   taking   into consideration various factors, it was found necessary to   protect   the   interests   of   the   residents   of   the Scheduled Districts. 7.6. It is submitted that it would be of immense benefit to the school going children in the Scheduled Districts, if they are taught in their own tribal language by the local teachers, rather than by outsiders, who may not Page   24  of   107 be well conversant with the local language. It is urged that orders under challenge before the High Court as such   did   not   suffer   from   any   denial   of   equality   of opportunity and / or discriminatory. Further the order under challenge before the High Court only distributes equality of opportunity in terms of felt needs of the Scheduled Areas of the State. Hence, there can be no objection   to   reasonable   provisions   being   made   as regards   Scheduled   Areas.   It   is   submitted   that   the Constitution   permits   discrimination,   albeit   on reasonable grounds. 7.7. It is further submitted that the scope of Article 16(3) is confined   to   inter   State   borders   and   that   it   has   no application to areas within a State. In this context, reliance is placed on the decision of this Court in the case of  AVS Narasimha Rao and Ors. Vs. The State  reported in . of A.P.  (1970) 1 SCR 115 7.8. It is submitted that the Governor has the power under para 1 of the Fifth Schedule to enact any measure in Page   25  of   107 the interests of the Scheduled Areas. No dichotomy between the powers under paras 1 and 2 of the Fifth Schedule   can   be   suggested.   That   they   are   only different facets of the plenary powers of the Governor. It   is   submitted   that   the   powers   conferred   on   the Governor under para 5(1) and (2) of the Fifth Schedule are plenary and exclusive powers. It is submitted that therefore the Governor can also stay the law made by the   Parliament   and   hence   the   said   powers   are   not subject   to   restrictions   under   Article   16   of   the Constitution of India.  Shri R. Venkataramani, learned Senior Advocate appearing   on   behalf   of   petitioners   has   further submitted that as such the decision of this Court in the case of  Chebrolu Leela Prasad Rao (supra)  is not applicable at all to the facts of the case on hand. That in   the   case   of   Chebrolu   Leela   Prasad   Rao   (supra) there was 100% preference / reservation in favour of only of Scheduled Tribes of the respective local areas of Andhra   Pradesh,   where   schools   are   located.   It   is Page   26  of   107 submitted that in the instant case there is no such reservation only in favour of the Scheduled Tribes of the Scheduled Areas. He has pointed out the following distinguishing features in support of his submissions that the decision of this Court in the case of  Chebrolu  shall not be made applicable Leela Prasad Rao (supra) to the present cases. I. All   candidates   whether   in   Scheduled   or   non­ Scheduled Areas can apply only in the District. II. Only Class III and IV posts at the District Level included. In the context of fitness of transfers of employees, generally this Court has observed that Class III and Class IV posts stand on a separate footing. III. All   candidates   within   the   districts,   whether SC/ST/BC or OBC, General can apply. IV. The provisions were experimental i.e., to last only for   10   years.   (legislative   experiments   in   Socio­ economic matters will receive judicial deference. 7.9. Relying upon the decisions of this Court in the case of Ram   Kripal Bhagat Vs. State of Bihar   reported in   and   in   the   case   of   (1970)   3   SCR   233 Puranlal Page   27  of   107 Lakhanpal   Vs.   President   of  India   reported   in   AIR 1961   SC  1519 ,  it is   prayed   that  there  is  need   for reconsideration of the decision in the case of  Chebrolu Leela Prasad Rao (supra) . 7.10.It is further submitted that in the present case, the Notification issued by the Governor, impugned before the High Court are not hit by Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and as such do not fall within the scope  of  the   judgment of  this  Court in the   case  of Chebrolu Leela Prasad Rao (supra) . It is submitted that   the   notifications   can   be   traced   both   to   Article 16(3) and the Fifth Schedule of the Constitution. It is further submitted that under the Fifth Schedule the Governor is placed at par with the parliament and the State legislature, and the power exercisable thereunder is plenary legislative power, and  not subordinate  to any other legislative power. The power of the Governor not to apply a parliamentary law to a Scheduled Area would place her/ him at par with the power of the Parliament   available   under   Article   16(3)   of   the Page   28  of   107 Constitution. 7.11.It is further submitted that that the Governor can do what the Parliament can do under Article 16(3) of the Constitution, and thus enact in respect of requirement of   residence,   as   a   measure   of   taking   care   of   the interests of schools in scheduled areas. It is further submitted that since Article 16(3) is an exception to Article   16(1)   any   reasonable   provision   as   regards residence requirement will be saved. It does not matter that   the   law   is   made   either   by   Parliament   or   the Governor. The power of the Governor not to apply a parliamentary law includes the power to do what the parliament can otherwise do. 7.12.It   is   further   submitted   that   it   is   open   to   treat   the notifications not as the amending instruments of the Rules made by the State of Jharkhand under Article 309   relating   to   appointment   of   teaching   staff.   It   is submitted that in the case of  Chebrolu Leela Prasad Rao (supra)   answering question 2(b) raised therein it was opined that since Rules made under Article 309 are   not   Parliamentary   or   State   law   they   cannot   be Page   29  of   107 amended under para 5 of the Fifth Schedule. 7.13.It   is   further   submitted   that   Fifth   Schedule   is   a Constitution   within   the   constitution,   (See Kesavananda Bharati Vs. State of Kerala (1973) 4 SCC 225 ) which suggests that the paramount interest of the scheduled areas and their development in ways that would suit the areas (for instance lands, forests, mineral wealth, etc. and the need to ensure against exploitation) will always inform the Governor in the exercise of powers under the Fifth Schedule. 7.14.It   is   further   submitted   that   the   rules   relating   to appointment themselves provide that no candidate can apply to posts in more than one district, and that the cadres are district level and not State level cadres. The Notification only extends the same restriction of one district   application   to   Scheduled   Areas,   keeping   in view the interests of all Scheduled Areas. There is no inter   se   discrimination   amongst   eligible   candidates residing within the Scheduled Areas. All principles of Page   30  of   107 reservation to other categories of candidates are also applicable. 7.15.It is submitted that this court has saved domicile as a reasonable   principle   as   regards   access   to  education and   public   employment.   The   safeguards   enacted   in Article   371   D,   for   example,   are   one   proximate illustration. 7.16.It is submitted that the impugned Notifications are not discriminatory. They do not look only at the place of residence as the factor, relevant for appointment to schools in Scheduled Areas. They treat residence as one   among   other   factors,   namely   the   best   way   of promoting the interests of schools in Scheduled Areas as a prominent or dominant aspect. In the balancing of the interests of schools in Scheduled Areas and the right   of   all   in   all   districts   to   be   considered   for appointment   as   teachers,   if   the   factor   of   residence within the scheduled district will tip in favour of the schools' interest, then the emphasis in Article 16(2) on Page   31  of   107 non­discrimination "'only»' on grounds of residence will yield to Article 16(3). 7.17.It is submitted that Article 16(2) of the Constitution of India prohibits discrimination on the grounds "only" of religion,   race,   caste,   sex,   descent,   place   of   birth, residence, and these expressions are preceded by the word "only" and followed by the expression "or any of them', which are significant. In the present case, the cumulative factors of low human development indices, backwardness, remoteness, poverty, inferiority in the social   indicators   in   the   State   due   to   uneven topography, lack of water resources, loss in canopy average   of   forest   and   uncontrolled   rapid industrialization have been taken into consideration. 7.18.It is further submitted that the Governor of the State is fully competent under paragraph 5(1) of Fifth Schedule of the Constitution of India to issue the notification making reservation in favour of the residents of the scheduled districts in order to secure justice­ social, Page   32  of   107 economic   and   political,   to   the   residents   suffering variously in the backdrop of the conditions mentioned in the notification. 7.19.In   the   alternative,   it   is   prayed   that   even   if   the Notification / Order impugned before the High Court are held to be unconstitutional and / or ultra vires, in that   case,   as   done   by   this   Court   in   the   case   of Chebrolu Leela Prasad Rao (supra)  the appointments already made in the Scheduled Areas be saved even by exercising power under Article 142 of the Constitution of   India.   It   is   submitted   that   in   many   cases   those candidates who have been appointed in the Scheduled Areas, were either working in the non­Scheduled Areas or for getting appointment in the Non­Scheduled Areas they   had   left   their   jobs   as   they   were   getting appointment in their own Districts. It is submitted that equities are also in their favour. It is further submitted that even appointment of the petitioners may not be disturbed when large number of posts are still lying vacant   in   the   State   of   Jharkhand   and   under   the Page   33  of   107 provision   of   Right   to   Education   Act,   fundamental rights are available to the residents of the area to have access to education and further it is duty cast upon the State to provide education. 7.20. It is submitted that the High Court has erred in not protecting the appointments already made by narrowly applying the decision in the case of   Chebrolu Leela Prasad Rao (supra) . One of the factors for protecting appointments made to public services in pursuance of open  competition  and fair opportunity,  even though falling foul of any other legal factor, will be whether the appointments are vitiated by the candidature’s fraud or  benefit,  and   whether   the  appointees   will  lose  on various counts. It is a matter of record that a large number   of   appointees   have   left   their   previous   jobs. Even   in   the   case   of   Chebrolu   Leela   Prasad   Rao (supra) , persons appointed as recently as in 2020 have been   protected.     Reliance   is   also   placed   on   the judgement in  Dr. Jaishri Laxmanrao Patil Vs. Chief Page   34  of   107 Minister   2021   SCC   Online   SC   362   for   protection granted by Court to the appointments already made. 8.0. Dr. Rajeev Dhavan, learned Senior Advocate appearing on   behalf   of   some   of   the   petitioners   –   candidates belonging   to   the   Scheduled   Districts   /   Areas   has elaborately made submission on the use of the word “only” under Article 15(1) and 16(2) of the Constitution of India. 8.1. It is submitted by Dr. Rajeev Dhavan, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the some of the petitioners that use of the word “only” in Article 15(1) and 16(2) of the Constitution of India would suggest that any of the prohibited   classification   “including   caste”   cannot   be taken as the basis of the classification unless there is some wider constitutional or public purpose and the classification   has   a   nexus   to   and   subserves   that purpose.   Reliance   is   placed   on   the   decision   of   this Court in the case of  Kailash Chandra Sharma (supra) (para 14) on the prohibitions in Article 16(2). That it is Page   35  of   107 observed in the said decision that prohibitory mandate under   Article   16(2)   is   not   attracted   if   the   alleged discrimination   is   on   grounds   not   merely   related   to residence but the factum of residence is only taken into account in addition to other relevant factors. 8.2. Reliance is also placed on the decision of this Court in the case of   reported P. Rajendran Vs. State of Madras in  (1968) 2 SCR 786.  It is submitted that as held by this Court in the aforesaid decision if the reservation in question, had been based only on caste and had not taken   into   account   the   social   and   educational backwardness of the caste in question,  it would be violative of Article 15(1) but it must not be forgotten that a caste can also refer to a class of citizens and if the   caste   as   a   whole   is   socially   and   educationally backward, reservation can be made in favour of such a caste on the ground that such a caste is socially and educationally backward class within the meaning of Article 15(4). Page   36  of   107 8.3. Dr. Rajeev Dhavan, learned Senior Advocate has also relied upon the decisions of this Court in the case of  N. Vasundhara Vs. State of Mysore  reported in ( 1971) 2 SCC 22   and in the  case of   Jayshree Vs.  State of  reported in   in support of his Kerala (1976) 3 SCC 730 submission   that   for   upliftment   of   local   residents belonging to the Schedules Areas, the Governor can in exercise of powers conferred under para 5 of the Fifth Schedule stay any of the Act made by the Parliament and / or State and the same cannot be said to be affecting rights of the individual under Articles 16(2) and 16(3) of the Constitution of India. 9.0. Shri Vikas Singh, learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of some of the original petitioners has made further submission in support of the prayer to mould the   relief   to   protect   the   services   of   the   already appointed   candidates   as   they   participated   in   a   fair process   of   selection   in   which   no   malpractice   was involved.  It  is  submitted  that  even  today,  there  are more   than   4000   posts   available   in   the   Scheduled Page   37  of   107 Districts   which   are   lying   vacant.   In   support   of   his above prayer, it is urged that this Court, in the case of   had   saved   the Chebrolu   Leela   Prasad   Rao   (supra) appointments already made. It is submitted that this was   because   at   least   50%   of   the   seats   had   been reserved for Scheduled Tribes only which was struck down by this Court. It is submitted that applying the said observations in the present case also this Court while   exercising   its   extraordinary   powers   conferred under   Article   142   of   the   Constitution   of   India   may protect   the   appointments   made   in   the   State   of Jharkhand   as   about   50%   appointments   of   total advertised vacancies have  been made till now.   It  is submitted that if the appointments already made are set aside pursuant to the impugned common judgment and   order   passed   by   the   High   Court,   in   that   case, lakhs   of   children   who   go   to   the   school   would   be without   teachers   which   would   be   contrary   to   the constitutional   mandate   of   Right   to   Education   as provided under Article 21A of the Constitution of India. Page   38  of   107 9.1. It   is   submitted   that   thousands   of   innocent petitioners / teachers will be rendered unemployed as against   219   contesting   respondents   /   interveners. That the paramount public interest demands that the appointments already made are not disturbed and the impugned   judgment   is   made   to   apply   only prospectively. 9.2. It is submitted that as such the original petitioners took part in the selection process, knowing fully well about   the   reservation   made   in   favour   of   the   local residents   of   the   Scheduled   Districts   and   thereafter having taken part in the selection process and having failed in getting selected, they cannot now turn around and   challenge   the   conditions   laid   down   in   the advertisement. 9.3. It is further submitted  that it is  not true that less meritorious   candidates   were   given   appointment   and the   rights   of   meritorious   candidates   has   been hampered. That as a matter of fact, in all most every Page   39  of   107 subject most of the appellants herein were much more meritorious than that of last selected / non selected / less   meritorious   candidates   of   Non­Scheduled Districts. Making above submissions, it is prayed to mould the relief and to direct to apply the impugned common judgment   and   order   passed   by   the   High   Court prospectively and / or at least to save appointments already made.  10.0.Similar   prayer   to   mould   the   relief   and   save   the appointments   already   made   and   to   direct   to   apply impugned   judgment   and   order   passed   by   the   High Court   prospectively   has   been   made   by   Shri   P.S. Patwalia, learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of some of the appellants/ teachers already appointed. In the alternative, it is prayed that only those writ petitioners   i.e.,  about  219   candidates  may  be  given opportunity to submit an option of the Districts where Page   40  of   107 they would like to be appointed, which would be done with reference to their merit against the vacant posts and with respect to rest of the vacant posts, the State may issue a fresh advertisement in accordance with law, with the age relaxation to the candidate who had already participated in the 2016 selection. In support of   his   above   submission,   reliance   is   placed   on   the decision of this Court in the case of   Hanuman Dutt Shukla Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh  reported in  (2018) 16 SCC 447 .  10.1.Shri   Patwalia,   learned   Senior   Advocate   has   also reiterated what has been submitted on behalf of the other   counsel   on   merits   by   assailing   the   impugned common judgment and order passed by the High Court and on the constitutional validity of the Notification / Orders issued by the Governor / State Government providing reservation for candidates belonging to the local residents of the Scheduled Areas/ Districts. 11.0.Ms.   Vibha   Datta   Makhija,   learned   Senior   Advocate appearing on behalf of some of the appellants herein – candidates   already   appointed   has   made   following submissions  in support of  her prayer to mould the Page   41  of   107 relief in favour of already appointed candidates. I. That   the   appointments   were   made   before   the decision of this Court in the case of   Chebrolu Leela Prasad Rao (supra) . Thus, at the time of appointment of the petitioners herein, law in the State of Jharkhand was not clear and was in a state of flux; II. Even this Court has vide final order in the case of Chebrolu Leela Prasad Rao (supra)   has saved the appointments; III. That all the appointed candidates­ petitioners are appointed by a fair process of selection and they are all meritorious candidates; IV. The Schools would be without teachers in case the petitioners are ousted from service. In SLP (C)No.12490 of 2020 about 1108 schools would be having no teachers and therefore, it may affect the education of the pupils. That the residents of the   Scheduled   Areas   are   also   having   right   to education   which   is   a   fundamental   right   as provided   under   the   Constitution   of   India. Therefore,   if   the   petitioners   and   other   already appointed teachers are removed, in that case, the Page   42  of   107 schools would be without teachers and therefore, it may affect / hamper the education in the State of Jharkhand. 11.1.Ms. Makhija, learned Senior Advocate has also relied upon   the   decisions   of   this   Court   in   the   case   of Chebrolu Leela Prasad Rao (supra) ,   Kailash Chand Sharma Vs. State of Rajasthan  reported in  (2002) 6 ,   reported SCC 562 K Madhav Reddy Vs. State of A.P in   (2014) 6 SCC 537 ,   R.K. Sabharwal Vs. State of Punjab   reported in   (1995) 2 SCC 745   and   Baburam   reported   in   ,   in Vs.   CC   Jacob (1999)   3   SCC   362 support of her prayer to direct to apply the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court only prospectively. 12. While   assailing   the   impugned   judgment   and   order passed by the High Court Shri Kapil Sibal, learned Senior Advocate and Shri Sunil Kumar, learned Senior Advocate   appearing   on   behalf   of   the   State   of Jharkhand   have   vehemently   submitted   that   in   the Page   43  of   107 present case and in the facts and   circumstances of the case, High Court has committed a grave error in declaring   the   Notification   /   Order   issued   by   the Governor / State Government and the advertisement providing   reservation   for   the   local   residents   of Scheduled   Area   /   Districts   as   unconstitutional   and ultra vires Articles 14, 16 and 35 of the Constitution of India. 12.1.It is submitted on behalf of the State that there is a basic   fallacy   in   the   contention   of   the   original petitioners that the impugned Notification makes the District as the basis of classification. It is submitted that   as   such   a   classification   is   made   by   the Constitution itself and the basis is “Scheduled Area” as contemplated under Article 244 r/w Fifth Schedule of the Constitution of India. That the Scheduled Areas are   such   of   those   areas   comprised   of   mostly   tribal population within the different States constituting the Union of India which the Constitution of India treats as special in the matter of its governance. That the Page   44  of   107 President may, by an order declare any such area as Scheduled Area under para 6 of Fifth Schedule of the Constitution of India. Under sub­para 2 of para 5 of Fifth Schedule, the President may direct that the whole or any specified part of a Scheduled Area shall cease to be a Scheduled Area or a part of such an area, or even increase the area of a Scheduled Area in the State. Thus the President may declare an entire District as a Scheduled Area or a part of the District as a Scheduled Area or even the  combination  of two Districts as a Scheduled Area.   It is submitted that in the instant case   on   a   consideration   of   the   demography   of   the different   Districts   in   the   State   of   Jharkhand,   the President of India formed an opinion to declare the areas comprised in 13 Districts as a Scheduled Area and made the Scheduled Areas (State of Jharkhand) Order, 2007. That as time passes the President may declare that a portion of any of the 13 Districts may cease to be a Scheduled Area or even increase the area of any of the declared Scheduled Areas by combining portions   of   two   Districts.   Therefore   the   impugned Page   45  of   107 Notification and order makes the District as the basis of classification. It is submitted that as such there is no   challenge   to   the   Scheduled   Area   (State   of Jharkhand) Order, 2007 in these cases. 12.2.So far as the contention on behalf of the original writ petitioners   that   impugned   Notification   and   Order purport to modify Rules framed under the  proviso to Article 309 which are neither an Act of Parliament nor an  Act  of   State   Legislature,  it  is  submitted   that  as such impugned Notification carves out an exception by stating “Notwithstanding anything contained in these rules or any other Act, Order, Direction, Rules or Law for the time being in force” and hence would include an Act of Parliament like the “Right of Children to  Free and   Compulsory   Education   Act,   2009”     which   was enacted pursuant to Article 21­A of the Constitution of India and is applicable to Elementary Schools. It is submitted that Section 23 of the said 2009 Act makes provision for eligibility for appointment of teachers in Elementary Schools. Hence the impugned Notification Page   46  of   107 would have to be read as carving out an exception / modification to an Act of the Parliament i.e., Section 23 of the said 2009 Act and same cannot be faulted with. 12.3.It is submitted that the impugned Notification and the Rules appended thereto which are being excepted / modified, are both expressed to have been made by “The Order of the Governor” and authenticated in the manner   prescribed   under   Article   166(2)   of   the Constitution of India. That the source of power to issue the impugned Notification can be traced to para 5(1) of Schedule   V   as   also   proviso   to   Article   309   of   the Constitution of India. It is submitted that the omission to  mention  “read  with  proviso to Article  309  of the Constitution” after ‘in exercise of powers conferred by the provision of sub­para (1) of para 5 of the Fifth Schedule ...” in the impugned Notification shall not affect / invalidate the amendment to the Rules framed under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India. That in the case of  Union of India and Anr. Vs. Page   47  of   107 Tulsiram Patel   reported in   (1985) 3 SCC 398   (para 126) it is observed that the source of power exists by reading together two provisions, whether statutory or constitutional and the order refers to only one of them but   the   validity   of   the   order   should   be   upheld   by construing   it   as   an   order   passed   under   both   the provisions. 12.4 Now so far as submission on behalf of the original writ petitioners whether the impugned Notification / Order are violative of Article 16 of the Constitution of India is concerned,   it   is   vehemently   submitted   that   the impugned Notification and Order are not “only” on the ground   of   residence.   It   is   submitted   that   social indicators   in   the   scheduled   areas   being   lesser   as compared to the other areas of the State as also the other factors mentioned in the impugned Notification / Order which indicate that those residing therein are not   equally   circumstanced   as   those   residing   in   the Non­   Scheduled   Areas,   there   is   no   equality   of opportunity. Hence, a duty is cast upon the State to minimize  the inequalities in income and endevour to Page   48  of   107 eliminate   inequalities   in   status,   facilities   and opportunities, not only amongst individuals but also amongst group of people residing in different areas or engaged in different vocations.  It is submitted that the Directive Principle of State policy contained in Articles 38, 39, 39­A, 43 and 46 part IV of the Constitution of India would apply in this case. It is submitted that the impugned order No.5939 dated 14.07.2016 was issued after   noticing   the   Report  of   Tribal   Advisory   Council and   various   factors   of   inequality   between   the Scheduled Areas and Non­Scheduled Area, it is stated therein that, inter alia, that additional opportunities of employment had to be provided to those residing in Scheduled Areas. That in the case of   Kailash Chand Sharma   (supra)   (para   48)   it   is   observed   that “equalising unequals by taking note of their handicaps and   limitation   is   not   impermissible   under   the Constitution provided that it seeks to achieve the goals of promoting overall equality”. It is urged that in the present   case   it   was   expected   that   overall   equality would be achieved by expression / modification of the Page   49  of   107 Rules made by impugned Notification and Order for a period of ten years. Therefore, as such, the impugned Notification and order cannot be said to be violative Article 16 of the Constitution of India. 12.5.Now so far as submission on behalf of the original writ petitioners that the impugned Notification is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India is concerned, it is vehemently submitted by learned Senior Advocate on behalf of the State that such argument based on infringement of Article 14 is fallacious. It is contended that while Article 14 guarantees that the State shall not deny to any person equality before law or the equal protection of laws, para 5(1) of Fifth Schedule starts with   a   non   obstante   clause   which   empowers   the Governor to direct that any Central Law or State Law shall not apply to a Scheduled Area or part thereof or may apply with such exceptions or modifications as he may direct. It is submitted that if the submission on behalf  of  the  original petitioners that  the impugned notification   /   order   is   in   violation   of   Article   14   is Page   50  of   107 accepted, in that case, it would lead to an apparent conflict   between   two   constitutional   provisions,   viz. Article   14   and   para   5(1)   of   Fifth   Schedule.   It   is submitted that this conflict can only be resolved by following   the   well   settled   principle   of   harmonious construction that the special law shall prevail over the general.   Reliance   is   placed   on   the   decision   of   this Court in the case of  J K Spinning and Weaving Mills Co. Ltd Vs. State of UP   reported in   AIR 1961 SC 1170   (para 9). It is submitted that said provision for the   Governance   and   development   of   the   Scheduled Areas and the Tribals residing therein would never be subject to the general provisions of the fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 16. 12.6 In the alternative, it is prayed by the learned Senior Advocate   appearing   on   behalf   of   the   State   not   to disturb the appointments already made earlier and to apply   the   impugned   common   judgment   and   order passed by the High Court prospectively so that it may not affect the education of the local residents of the Page   51  of   107 Scheduled Areas. It is submitted that if the impugned judgment   and   order   passed   by   the   High   Court   is implemented and the appointments already made are also set aside as observed and held by the High Court, in that case, the teachers will have to be relieved and many   schools   in   the   Scheduled   Areas   would   be without   teachers   and   it   may   ultimately   hamper education   in   the   State   and   which   may   violate   the fundamental rights which would be available to the local   residents   of   the   Scheduled   Area   guaranteed under Article 21 A of the Constitution of India. 13. Present Appeals are vehemently opposed by Shri Ranjit Kumar   and   Shri   Gopal   Sankaranarayanan,   learned Senior Advocates appearing on behalf of the contesting respondents   –   original   petitioners   –   candidates belonging to the Non­Scheduled Areas / Districts. 13.1.Shri Ranjit Kumar, learned Senior Advocate  appearing on behalf of the original writ petitioners appearing in Civil Appeal No.4044 of 2022 on behalf of Soni Kumari Page   52  of   107 has submitted that the original writ petitioners (W.P No.1387 of 2017 before the High Court) approached the   High   Court   challenging   the   State   Government Notification   No.5938     and   Order   No.5939   dated 14.07.2016 whereby in Thirteen Scheduled Districts in Jharkhand   (out   of   total   24   Districts)   only   local residents of Thirteen Scheduled Districts were made eligible for appointment to Class III and IV posts for a period   of   10   years   as   well   as   advertisement   dated 28.12.2016 as modified on 4.12.2017 and clause V (iii) which   restricted   only   local   residents   /   domicile   of notified / Scheduled Districts alone being entitled to submit   application   against   vacancies   earmarked   for the  said  Districts.    It is  submitted  that  due  to the impugned  Notification / order and the advertisement she was constrained to submit the application Form for District Palamu – a Non­Scheduled District, though after   her   marriage   she   is   residing   at   Ranchi,   a Scheduled   District.   It   is   submitted   that   she   had secured more marks than the cut off marks obtained by   the   last   selected   candidate   in   her   category   and Page   53  of   107 subject in the Scheduled Districts  and yet she was not selected.   It   is   submitted   that   in   this   factual background the challenge to the impugned notification /   order   and   the   advancement   are   required   to   be appreciated. 13.2.It is submitted by Shri Ranjit Kumar, learned Senior Advocate that the issues which arises for consideration in the instant case are: I. Whether the exercise of Governor's power under Paragraph 5 of the Fifth Schedule is a "plenary power" or an "enabling power" which must meet the test of basic feature/foundational principles and fundamental rights guaranteed under Part III of the Constitution? II. Whether the Governor is vested with the power to determine   eligibility   based   on   residence (specifying   100%   reservation   for   domiciles   in Schedule Districts) under Paragraph 5(1) of the Fifth Schedule? III. Whether GOs No. 5938 & 5939 dated 14.07.2016 whereby   in   the   13   Scheduled   Districts   in Jharkhand,   Only   local   residents   of   the   said districts were declared eligible for appointment to Page   54  of   107 Class Ill and IV posts for a period of 10 years are ultra vires Articles 14, 16(2)&(3) and 35 (a­i) of the Constitution? 13.3.In support of the submissions on behalf of the original petitioners   –   candidates   belonging   to   the   Non­ Scheduled   Areas   that   the   impugned   Notification   / Order   and   the   advertisement   restricting   the   local residents of the Scheduled Area only to apply for the post in the Scheduled Area are ultra vires to Articles 14  & 16 of  the Constitution  of India and  it  affects candidates   belonging   to   the   non­Scheduled   Area guaranteed under Part III of the Constitution of India, following submissions are made:  I. The power vested with the Governor under Article 244(1)   read   with   the   Fifth   Schedule   of   the Constitution   is   not   a   plenary   power   but   is   an enabling   power   to   meet   the   object   specified therein   i.e.,   "Administration   of   the   Scheduled Areas". Paragraph 5(1) of the Fifth Schedule is one facet of this enabling power vested with the Governor.   In   terms   of   this   paragraph,   he   may determine which Parliament or State legislation Page   55  of   107 shall   apply   to   the   Scheduled   Area,   specify   the exceptions/modifications   to   the   legislations   so specified   and   also   determine   retrospective applicability of such legislation; II. The   power   of   the   Governor   under   Para   5(1)  of Fifth   Schedule   does   not   extend   to   subordinate legislation; it is with respect to an Act enacted in the   sovereign   function   by   the   Parliament   or legislature of the State which can only be dealt with; III. The Non obstante clause in Paragraph 5 of Fifth Schedule cannot be construed as taking away the provision outside the limitations on the amending power   and   has   to   be   harmoniously   construed consistent with the foundational principles and the basic features of the Constitution; IV. The Governor's power under Para 5(1) of the Fifth Schedule to the Constitution is subject to some restrictions,   which  have  to   be   observed   by  the Parliament or the legislature of the State while making   law   and   shall   not   affect   fundamental rights   guaranteed   under   Part   III   of   the Constitution; In support of above submissions, heavy reliance Page   56  of   107 is placed on the decision of this Court in the case of Chebrolu Leela Prasad Rao (supra)   (Paras 102­104, 154(1)(c)).  13.4.It is further submitted by Shri Ranjit Kumar, learned Senior Advocate that residence local by itself cannot be a   ground   to   accord   any   preferential   treatment   for reservation   in   public   employment   by   the   State Government since the same stands specifically barred by Article 16(1) and (2) of the Constitution. Reliance is placed on the decision of this Court in the case of State of Orissa & Ors Vs. Sudhir Kumar Bishwal & Ors  reported in 1994 Supp (3) SCC 245 para 6 and 8. 13.5.It is further submitted that the Governor lacks subject matter jurisdiction to prescribe any requirement as to residence within the State in light of Article 16(3) r/w Article 35 (a­i) of the Constitution which mandate that power   to   create   residential   qualification   for employment is exclusively conferred on Parliament and not   the   State   Legislature   which,   by   necessary corollary, shall exclude the State Executive (Governor) Page   57  of   107 whose power is co­terminus with the State Legislature. It is submitted that the Parliament alone is empowered to make the law prescribing residential requirement within a State or Union Territory, as the case may be, in relation to a class or classes of employment. It is submitted   that   therefore,   in   the   absence   of parliamentary   law,   even   the   prescription   of requirement   as   to   residence   within   the   State   is impossible. In support of above submission, reliance is placed on the decision of this Court in the case of  AVS Narasimha Rao & Ors. Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh & Anr.  reported in  (1969) 1 SCC 839 ,   Kailash Chand Sharma Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.   reported in   (para 13­14) and   (2002) 6 SCC 562 Rajesh Kumar Gupta & Ors. Vs.  State  of UP & Ors.   reported  in (2005) 5 SCC 172  (para 16 &b 17). 13.6.It is further submitted that even otherwise impugned orders   /   notification   as   sought   to   introduce   100% reservation in the Thirteen Scheduled District in the Page   58  of   107 State   of   Jharkhand   whereby   only   local   residents   of said Districts were declared eligible for appointment to Class III and IV posts for the period of 10 years, are contrary to the law laid down by this Court in the case of  Indra Sawhney (supra)  (para 788) as well as recent decision of the Constitutional Bench of this Court in the case of  Chebrolu Leela Prasad Rao (supra)   (para 104) wherein it has been held that the outer limit of the reservations contemplated in Clause (4) of Article 16 of the Constitution of India should not normally exceed the limit of 50%. 13.7.Now so far as justification by the State in invoking “sons   of   the   soil”   policy   prescribing   reservation   or preference based on domicile or residence as already been decried by this Court in the case of  Dr. Pradeep  reported in   (para 5), it Jain Vs. UOI (1984) 3 SCC 654 is submitted that in the said decision it is observed and held that the Parliament alone has been given the right   to   enact   an   exception   to   the   ban   on discrimination   based   on   residence.   The   impugned Page   59  of   107 Government   Notifications   No.   5938   &   5939   dated 14.07.2016 are ex facie violative of Article 14 of the Constitution in as much as the same is not based on any   intelligible   differentia   and   does   not   have   any rational nexus with the object and purpose it has set out to achieve i.e., selection of the most competent teachers to impart quality education in secondary and high   schools   run   by   State   Government   and improvement of educational standard of the residents within the State. It is submitted that many districts notified as Scheduled Districts like East Singhbhum (Jamshedpur) and Ranchi are at the top half of the Human   Development   Index   (HDI)   in   Jharkhand whereas   the   Petitioner's   District   Palamau   has   the lowest HDI in the State, yet has been classified as a Non­Scheduled District which smacks of arbitrariness adopted by the State in determination of Schedule and Non­ Scheduled Districts. 13.8.It is further submitted that even the contention raised by   the   State   Government   and   some   of   the   learned Page   60  of   107 counsel   appearing   on   behalf   of   the   candidates belonging to the Scheduled Areas that the impugned Notification / Order were premised on the basis that candidates who knew the local tribal language spoken in the concerned district would be in a better position to  teach the   students,   is   absolutely  fallacious.   It  is submitted that as such said contention has not been approved and / or accepted by this Court in the case of   .   That   even Chebrolu   Leela   Prasad   Rao   (supra) otherwise TGT Recruitment Process is conducted for selection   of   Trained   Graduate   Teachers   to   teach various subjects in Secondary Schools.  It is submitted that   thus   excepting   for   the   local   tribal   language subject,   all   other   subjects   (viz.   English,   Hindi, Mathematics,   Science,   Social   Studies)   which   are general   in   nature   must   be   taught   by   the   most meritorious teachers so as to bring about an all­round development   of   the   students   as   opposed   to   a substandard teacher whose contribution is negligible in academics. Page   61  of   107 It is submitted that Hindi is the official language in   Jharkhand   and   is   also   the   common   medium   of interaction   among   the   various   regions   in   the   State since over 21 languages are spoken in the State. That therefore, it stands to no reason that persons who do not know all 21 regional languages spoken in the State would be unable to impart education to the students in those regions. It is submitted that any person who is well versed in Hindi (Devnagari script) is more than competent   to   effectively   impart   education   to   the students   in   all   districts   in   the   State   without   any hindrance. 13.9.It is further submitted by Shri Ranjit Kumar, learned Senior   Advocate   that   once   impugned   Notification   / Order are held to be unconstitutional and ultra vires to Articles 14, 16 and 35 of the Constitution of India, in that   case,   any   appointment   made   violating   the fundamental rights of the original writ petitioners and appointment made pursuant to such unconstitutional provisions,   the   same   have   to   be   set   aside.   It   is Page   62  of   107 submitted   that   therefore,   the   High   Court   has   not committed any error in quashing the appointment of the  original writ  petitioner.   In  support of  his  above submission, following recent decisions are relied upon: I. Anupal Singh Vs. State of UP  reported in  (2020) 2 SCC 173 . II. State of UP and Ors. Vs. Anand Kumar Yadav and Ors.  reported in  (2018) 13 SCC 560 . III. Renu Vs. District & Sessions Judge  reported in (2014) 15 SCC 731 . IV.  reported in  State of MP Vs. Dharam Bir (1998) 6 SCC 165. V. Syed Khalid Rizvi and Ors. Vs. Union of India  reported in  and Ors. 1993 Supp. (3) SCC 575. VI. Surajprakash Gupta and Ors. Vs. State of J & K and Ors . reported in  (2000) 7 SCC 561 . VII. R.S. Garg Vs. State of UP and Ors.  reported in . (2006) 6 SCC 430 VIII. Secretary,   State   of   Karnataka   and   Ors.   Vs. Umadevi (3) and Ors.  reported in  (2006) 4 SCC 1 . 13.10   It is further submitted by Shri Ranjit Kumar, Page   63  of   107 learned   Senior  Advocate   appearing   on   behalf   of   the respective   original   writ   petitioners   –   candidates belonging   to   the   Non­Scheduled   Districts   has   also requested to mould the relief under Article 142 of the Constitution of India by directing to prepare a revised merit   list   based   on   the   already   published   cut   off obtained by the last selected candidate in each TGT subject against respective categories. It is submitted that   this   would   entail   that   no   fresh   or   de   novo recruitment   process   is   initiated   qua   the   advertised posts   on   the   one   hand,   while   on   the   other   hand candidates from the present pool itself including the original writ petition – Soni Kumar and 218 similarly situated   candidates   as   well   as   even   the   present selected   candidates   will   get   an   opportunity   to   be considered for appointment as TGT teachers. Reliance is placed on the decision of this Court in the case of Rajesh Kumar Vs. State of Bihar  reported in  (2013) 4 SCC 690   and   Ran Vijay Singh Vs. State of UP reported   in   (2018)   2   SCC   357 ,   in   support   of   his Page   64  of   107 request and prayer to mould the relief as prayed for. 14. Shri   Gopal   Sankaranarayanan,   the   learned   Senior Advocate   has   also   made   elaborate   submissions   in support of the impugned common judgment and order. 15. In the State of Jharkhand 13 Districts were declared as Scheduled Districts / Areas in exercise of powers conferred by sub­paragraph (2) of Paragraph 6 of the Fifth Schedule to the Constitution of India. That the State Government has framed the Recruitment Rules, 2015   prescribing   conditions   /   qualifications   for appointment   of   teachers.   The   said   Rules   are   in exercise   of   powers   under   Article   309   of   the Constitution   of   India.   That   vide   Circular   dated 18.04.2016 and pursuant to the order passed by the High   Court,   the   State   Government   has   prescribed definition of “Local Resident of Jharkhand”. As per the said circular, Local Resident of Jharkhand would be deemed to be Indian Citizens who are fulfilling any one condition out of the following criteria: ­  Page   65  of   107 “(i). he   would   have   been   residing   within   the geographical limits of the State of Jharkhand and either his own name or name of his forefather would have been lying recorded in Survey Khata. In the cases   of   landless,   he   would   be   identified   by   the concerning Gram Sabha which would be based on language, culture & traditions prevailing in the State of Jharkhand. (ii)would have been residing within the geographical limits of the State of Jharkhand for the   past 30 years or more due to any trade, employment and other reasons and  would have earned immovable property or such person has wife/husband /child and affirm commitment to stay in Jharkhand State. (iii)   would   have   been   appointed   &   working officer/employee under the Government of State of Jharkhand  / institutions  being run/recognized  by the State Government, Corporation etc.  Or   has wife/husband /child and affirm commitment to stay in Jharkhand state. (iv)Officer/employee   of   the   Government   of   India, working in the  State of Jharkhand or have 188 wife/husband /child and affirm  commitment   to stay in Jharkhand state. (v)Person   appointed   at   any   constitutional   or statutory posts in  the  State of Jharkhand  or have wife/husband /child and affirm  commitment   to stay in Jharkhand state. (vi)  Such person who would have born in the State of Jharkhand  and  completed his whole education upto Matriculation or its equivalent level from the recognized   institutions   established   in   the   state   of Jharkhand   &   affirm   commitment   to   stay   in Jharkhand state.” 16. That   thereafter,   Governor   of   Jharkhand   /   State Government   in   exercise   of   powers   under   Paragraph 2(1) of the Fifth Schedule to the Constitution of India Page   66  of   107 has issued the order / Notification dated 14.07.2016, inter   alia,   providing   that   notwithstanding   anything contained in any Appointment / Recruitment Rules or any other Act, Order, Direction, Rules or Law for the time   being   in   force   only   local   residents   of   the Scheduled   Areas   /   Districts   in   the   State   shall   be eligible for recruitment to the vacancy arising in Class III   and   IV   posts   of   the   District   Cadre   in   various departments of the concerned Districts, for a period of 10 years from the date of issue of the said Notification. The Order and Notification, validity of which have been questioned, are extracted hereinunder: G “ overnment of Jharkhand Deptt. of Personnel, Administrative Reforms & Rajbhasha Order  Ranchi, Dated 14.07.2016 No.  5939  /  Whereas,  under  sub­paragraph   (1)   of paragraph 5 of the Fifth Schedule to the Constitution of India, the Governor may, by public notification direct that any particular Act of Parliament or of the Legislature of the State shall not apply to a Schedule Area or any part thereof in the State subject to such exceptions   and   modifications   as   specified   in   the notification. Page   67  of   107 And whereas, the Scheduled Area in the State are characterized by low Human Development Indices, backwardness,   W.P.(C)   No.   1387   of   2017   and analogous matters remoteness poverty and whereas the social indicators of the Scheduled Areas are on an   average,   inferior   to   the   average   of   social indicators in the State due to uneven topography, lack of water resources, loss in canopy coverage of forest and uncontrolled rapid industrialization; And   whereas,   recognizing   the   factors   identified above, the Tribal Advisory Council of Jharkhand has recommended   issuing   of   a   notification   by   the Governor for suspension of eligibility conditions as enshrined   in   various   appointment   rules   for   the appointment of class 3 and class 4 posts at district level  for a period  of  10  years  in the  13  districts namely­   Sahebganj,   Pakur,   Dumka,   Jamtara, Latehar,   Ranchi,   Khunti,   Gumla,   Lohardagga, Simdega,   East   Singhbhum,   West   Singhbhum   and Sraikela­Kharsawan for appointment of cent­percent District level class­3 and class­4 posts by the local residents of the district concerned; And whereas, the Governor of Jharkhand in order to improve   the   quality   of   people   in   the   Scheduled Areas,   by   providing   additional   opportunities   of employment,   in   favour   of   the   local   residents   of Scheduled Areas; The following notification shall come into effect from the date of its publications in the official Gazette.” G “ overnment of Jharkhand Deptt. of Personnel, Administrative Reforms & Rajbhasha Notification Ranchi, Dated 14.07.2016 No.14   /   Sthaneeyata   Neeti­14­01/2015/5938   In exercise of powers conferred by the provisions by sub­paragraph   (1)   of   paragraph   5   of   the   Fifth Schedule to the Constitution of India, the Governor of Jharkhand,   hereby,   directs   that   the   provisions Page   68  of   107 regarding "eligibility of the appointment" mentioned in the various appointment rules as per list enclosed, Government may amend from time to time, framed by the State Government under   article 309  of the Constitution for the appointment to the district cadre posts, shall be deemed to the modified and enforced up to the extent as specified, hereinafter, namely:­ "Notwithstanding anything contained in these rules or any other Act, Order, Direction, Rules or Law for the time being in force, only local residents of the districts namely ­ Sahebganj, Pakur,   Dumka,   Jamtara,   Latehar,   Ranchi, Khunti,   Gumla,   Lohardagga,   Simdega,   East Singhbhum, West Singhbhum and W.P.(C) No. 1387 of 2017 and analogous mattersSraikela­ Kharsawan, shall be eligible for recruitment to the vacancies arising in class­3 and class­4 posts   of   the   district   cadre   in   various department  of  the  concerned  districts, for a period of 10 years from the date of issue of this notification." By order in the name of the  Governor of Jharkhand  Sd/­ Nidhi Khare  Principal Secretary to the  Government 16.1.Thus, by the aforesaid impugned Order / Notification the   Governor   of   Jharkhand   has   directed   that   the provisions   regarding   “eligibility   of   the   appointment” mentioned in the various Appointment Rules, and as framed by the State Government under Article 309 of the Constitution of India for the appointment to the District Cadre posts, shall be deemed to the modified and enforced up to the extent that cent­percent Class­ Page   69  of   107 III and Class­IV posts in various department in the 13 Scheduled   districts   shall   be   reserved   for   the   local residents of the concerned districts only. At this stage, it is required to be noted that by the said Notification only the service Rules framed under Article 309 of the Constitution of India came to be modified and even the list attached to the notification does not contain any Act of the Parliament or of the State Legislature. By the impugned judgment and order, the High Court, following   and   relying   upon   the   decision   of   the Constitutional   Bench   of   this   Court   in   the   case   of Chebrolu Leela Prasad Rao (supra)  has declared the aforesaid   Order   /   Notification   dated   14.07.2016   as unconstitutional   and   consequently   has   quashed appointments of the trained graduate teachers made pursuant to the Advertisement No. 21/2016 published on 28th December, 2016 as modified by Advertisement dated 4.2.2017, in the Scheduled Districts relating to the   local   resident   of   those   Districts   only.   That thereafter, the  High Court  has directed  that all the 8423   posts   of   Trained   Graduate   Teacher   in   the Page   70  of   107 Government   Secondary   Schools   in   the   scheduled districts of the State of Jharkhand shall be advertised afresh and a fresh selection process be undertaken in accordance   with   law.   The   impugned   judgment   and order   passed   by   the   High   Court   and   the   aforesaid directions is the subject matter of the present appeals.  17. Having heard the learned counsel for the respective parties   and   considering   the   impugned   common judgment and  order passed by the High Court, the questions   which  are  posed  for  consideration   of  this Court are as under: I. Whether   in   exercise   of   powers   conferred   under paragraph   5(1)   of   the   Fifth   Schedule   to   the Constitution   of   India,   whether,   the   Governor   can provide for 100% reservation contrary to Part III of the   Constitution   of   India,   more   particularly, guaranteed under Article 16(1) and (2) ? II. Whether in exercise of powers under paragraph 5(1) of the Fifth Schedule to the Constitution of India the Governor   has   the   power   to   modify   the   relevant Recruitment Rules framed under Article 309 of the Constitution of India ? III. What order ? Page   71  of   107 17.1.While considering the aforesaid questions / issues the relevant Constitutional provisions which would have a direct bearing are required to be referred to, which are as under: ­ “Article   13 .   Laws   inconsistent   with   or   in derogation   of   the   fundamental   rights ­   (1)   All laws in force in the territory of India immediately before the commencement of this Constitution, in so far as they are inconsistent with the provisions of this Part, shall, to the extent of such inconsistency, be void.  (2) The State shall not make any law which takes away or abridges the rights conferred by this Part and any law made in contravention of this clause shall, to the extent of the contravention, be void.   (3)   In   this   article,   unless   the   context   otherwise requires,— (a) “law” includes any Ordinance, order, bye­law,   rule,   regulation,   notification,   custom   or usage having in the territory of India the force of law;  (b) “laws in force” includes laws passed or made by a   Legislature   or   other   competent   authority   in   the territory of India before the commencement of this Constitution   and   not   previously   repealed, notwithstanding   that   any   such   law   or   any   part thereof may not be then in operation either at all or in particular areas.  (4)   Nothing   in   this   article   shall   apply   to   any amendment of this Constitution made under article 368. xxx xxx xxx Article 16 .   Equality of opportunity in matters of public employment ­   (1) There shall be equality of opportunity for all citizens in matters relating to employment or appointment to any office under the Page   72  of   107 State.  (2) No citizen shall, on grounds only of religion, race, caste, sex, descent, place of birth, residence or any of them, be ineligible for, or discriminated against in respect of, any employment or office under the State. (3) Nothing in this article shall prevent Parliament from   making   any   law   prescribing,   in  regard   to   a class or classes of employment or appointment to an office  1[under  the  Government  of, or any  local  or other authority within, a State or Union territory, any requirement   as   to   residence   within   that   State   or Union   territory]   prior   to   such   employment   or appointment. (4) Nothing in this article shall prevent the State from making   any   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. (4A) Nothing in this article shall prevent the State from   making   any   provision   for   reservation   3[in matters of promotion, with consequential seniority, to   any   class]   or   classes   of   posts   in   the   services under the State in favour of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes which, in the opinion of the   State,   are   not   adequately   represented   in   the services under the State. (4B) Nothing in this article shall prevent the State from considering any unfilled vacancies of a year which are reserved for being filled up in that year in accordance with any provision for reservation made under clause (4) or clause (4A) as a separate class of vacancies to be filled up in any succeeding year or years   and   such   class   of   vacancies   shall   not   be considered together with the vacancies of the year in which they are being filled up for determining the ceiling of fifty per cent. reservation on total number of vacancies of that year. (5) Nothing in this article shall affect the operation of any law which provides that the incumbent of an Page   73  of   107 office in connection with the affairs of any religious or denominational institution or any member of the governing body thereof shall be a person professing a   particular   religion   or   belonging   to   a   particular denomination. xxx xxx xxx Article   46.   Promotion   of   educational   and economic   interests   of   Scheduled   Castes, Scheduled Tribes and other weaker sections ­ The   State   shall   promote   with   special   care   the educational and economic interests of the weaker sections   of   the   people,   and,   in   particular,   of   the Scheduled  Castes  and  the Scheduled Tribes, and shall protect them from social injustice and all forms of exploitation. xxx xxx xxx Article 244. Administration of Scheduled Areas (1) The provisions of the Fifth and Tribal Areas ­   Schedule   shall   apply   to   the   administration   and control of the Scheduled Areas and Scheduled Tribes in   any   State   1   other   than   2[the   States   of* Assam3[,4[Meghalaya, Tripura and Mizoram].  (2) The provisions of the Sixth Schedule shall apply to   the   administration   of   the   tribal   areas   in   2[the States   of   Assam   3[,5[Meghalaya,   Tripura   and Mizoram] xxx xxx xxx Article   246.   Subject­matter   of   laws   made   by Parliament and by the Legislatures of States  ­ (1) Notwithstanding anything in clauses (2) and (3), Parliament has exclusive power to make laws with respect to any of the matters enumerated in List I in the Seventh Schedule (in this Constitution referred to as the “Union List”).  (2)   Notwithstanding   anything   in   clause   (3), Parliament,   and,   subject   to   clause   (1),   the Legislature of any State 1 also, have power to* make   laws   with   respect   to   any   of   the   matters Page   74  of   107 enumerated in List III in the Seventh Schedule (in this   Constitution   referred   to   as   the   “Concurrent List”). (3) Subject to clauses (1) and (2), the Legislature of any State 1 has exclusive power to make laws for* such State or any part thereof with respect to any of the   matters   enumerated   in   List   II   in   the   Seventh Schedule   (in   this   Constitution   referred   to   as   the “State List”). (4) Parliament has power to make laws with respect to any matter for any part of the territory of India not included   2[in   a   State]   notwithstanding   that   such matter is a matter enumerated in the State List. xxx xxx xxx Article 254. Inconsistency between laws made by   Parliament   and   laws   made   by   the Legislatures of States ­     (1) If any provision of a law made by the Legislature of a State is repugnant to any provision of a law made by Parliament which Parliament is competent to enact, or to any provision of an existing law with respect to one of the matters enumerated in the Concurrent List, then, subject to the   provisions   of   clause   (2),   the   law   made   by Parliament, whether passed before or after the law made by the Legislature of such State, or, as the case may be, the existing law, shall prevail and the law made by the Legislature of the State shall, to the extent of the repugnancy, be void. (2) Where a law made by the Legislature of a State 1 with respect to one of the matters enumerated* in   the   Concurrent   List   contains   any   provision repugnant to the provisions of an earlier law made by Parliament or an existing law with respect to that matter, then, the law so made by the Legislature of such   State   shall,   if   it   has   been   reserved   for   the consideration of the President and has received his assent, prevail in that State: Provided that nothing in this clause shall prevent Parliament from enacting at any time any law with respect to the same matter including a law adding Page   75  of   107 to, amending, varying or repealing the law so made by the Legislature of the State. xxx xxx xxx 309. Recruitment and conditions of service of persons serving   the Union or a State ­  Subject to the   provisions   of   this   Constitution,   Acts   of   the appropriate   Legislature   may   regulate   the recruitment,   and   conditions   of   service   of   persons appointed, to public services and posts in connection with the affairs of the Union or of any State: Provided   that   it   shall   be   competent   for   the President or such person as he may direct in the case of services and posts in connection with the affairs of the Union, and for the Governor of a State or   such   person   as   he   may   direct   in   the   case   of services and posts in connection with the affairs of the State, to make rules regulating the recruitment, and the conditions of service of persons appointed, to such services and posts until provision in that behalf is made by or under an Act of the appropriate Legislature   under   this   article,   and   any   rules   so made shall have effect subject to the provisions of any such Act Para 5 of the Fifth Schedule of the Constitution 5.   Law   applicable   to   Scheduled   Areas .—(1) Notwithstanding anything in this Constitution, the Governor may by public notification direct that any particular Act of Parliament or of the Legislature of the State shall not apply to a Scheduled Area or any part   thereof   in   the   State   or   shall   apply   to   a Scheduled   Area   or   any   part   thereof   in   the   State subject to such exceptions and modifications as he may   specify   in   the   notification   and   any   direction given under this sub­paragraph may be given so as to have retrospective effect.  (2) The Governor may make regulations for the peace and good government of any area in a State which is for the time being a Scheduled Area. In particular Page   76  of   107 and   without   prejudice   to   the   generality   of   the foregoing power, such regulations may— (a) prohibit or restrict the transfer of land by or among members  of  the  Scheduled  Tribes in such area;  (b) regulate the allotment of land to members of the Scheduled Tribes in such area;  (c)   regulate   the   carrying   on   of   business   as money­lender by persons who lend money to members   of   the   Scheduled   Tribes   in   such area. (3) In making any such regulation as is referred to in sub­paragraph   (2)   of   this   paragraph,   the Governor1   may   repeal   or   amend   any   Act   of* Parliament or of the Legislature of the State or any existing law which is for the time being applicable to the area in question.  (4) All regulations made under this paragraph shall be submitted forthwith to the President and, until assented to by him, shall have no effect. (5)   No   regulation   shall   be   made   under   this paragraph   unless   the   Governor   making   the regulation has, in the case where there is a Tribes Advisory   Council   for   the   State,   consulted   such Council. 17.2.As   per   Article   246(1),   notwithstanding   anything contained in clauses (2) and (3), Parliament shall have exclusive power to make laws with respect to any of the matters enumerated in List I in the Seventh Schedule (Union   List).   As   per   Article   246(2),   notwithstanding anything   in   clause   (3),   Parliament,   and,   subject   to clause (1), the Legislature of any State also shall have Page   77  of   107 power to make laws with respect to any of the matters enumerated   in   List   III   in   the   Seventh   Schedule (Concurrent List). As per Article 254 of the Constitution of India, if any provision of law made by the Legislature of a State is repugnant to any provision of a law made by Parliament which Parliament is competent to enact, or to any provision of an existing law with respect to one of the matters enumerated in the Concurrent List, then, subject to the provisions of clause (2), the law made by Parliament, whether passed before or after the law made by the Legislature of such State, or, as the case may be, the existing law, shall prevail and the law made by the Legislature of the State shall, to the extent of the repugnancy, be void. Thus, as per the aforesaid Constitutional provisions, law made by the Parliament is   supreme   and   shall   prevail   and   every   State/State Legislature   is   bound   by   the   law   made   by   the Parliament.   However,   paragraph   5   of   the   Fifth Schedule to the Constitution of India is an exception. Notwithstanding   the   aforesaid   provisions,   giving supremacy   to   the   law   made   by   the   Parliament,   the Page   78  of   107 Governor   may   direct   that   any   particular   Act   of Parliament or of the Legislature of the State shall not apply to a Scheduled Area or any part thereof in the State or shall apply to a Scheduled Area or any part thereof  in the   State  subject  to such exceptions   and modifications   as   he   may   specify   in   the   notification. Thus, the expression “notwithstanding anything in this Constitution” is related to the Constitutional provisions regarding   the   supremacy   of   the   law   made   by   the Parliament or State Legislature. This aspect shall be discussed   herein   below   while   considering   the submissions made on behalf of the appellants herein regarding paragraph 5(1) of the Fifth Schedule to the Constitution of India. 17.3.Therefore, the short question which is posed for the consideration of this Court is, whether, in exercise of powers   conferred   under   paragraph   5(1)   of   the   Fifth Schedule to the Constitution, the Governor can make provisions for 100% reservation in the scheduled Areas / Districts which may affect the rights of the citizens Page   79  of   107 guaranteed   under   Part   III,   more   particularly,   under Article   16   (2)   of   the   Constitution   of   India?   Whether such reservation would not be hit by Article 13 of the Constitution of India? 18. Identical   question   came   to   be   considered   by   the Constitutional   Bench   of   this   Court   in   the   case   of Chebrolu Leela Prasad Rao (supra).  Before this Court the Governor of State of Andhra Pradesh issued GO in exercise   of   powers   under   paragraph   5(1)   of   the Schedule 5 of the Constitution of India,   directing the posts   of   teachers   in   educational   institutions   in   the scheduled tribe areas shall be reserved for Scheduled Tribes only notwithstanding anything contained in any other order or rule or law in force. Several questions were referred to the Constitution Bench. The following questions were ultimately framed for consideration by the Constitutional Bench: (1) What is the scope of paragraph 5(1), Schedule V to the Constitution of India? (a) Does the provision empower the Governor to make a new law? Page   80  of   107 (b)   Does   the   power   extend   to   subordinate legislation? (c) Can the exercise of the power conferred therein override   fundamental   rights   guaranteed   under Part III? (d) Does the exercise of such power override any parallel exercise of power by the President under Article 371D? (2) Whether 100% reservation is permissible under the Constitution? (3)   Whether   the   notification   merely   contemplates   a classification under   Article 16(1) and not reservation under  Article 16(4)? (4) Whether the  conditions  of eligibility (i.e., origin and cut­off date) to avail the benefit of reservation in the notification are reasonable?" 18.1. Question No.1(a), (b), (c) and question no.3 referred to herein above are relevant for our purpose. 18.2. After   taking   into   consideration   the   relevant Constitutional   provisions   viz.   Article   244,   Fifth Schedule, so far as question No.1(a) viz. whether the provision empower the Governor to make a new law is concerned, it is observed and held by the Constitution Page   81  of   107 Bench that the Governor’s power to  make new law is not available in view of the clear language of Para 5(1) Fifth   Schedule   does   not   recognize   or   confer   such power, but only power is not to apply the law or to apply  it with exceptions or modifications.(para 51) 18.3. Answering question no.1(b) viz. does the power extend to subordinate legislation, it is observed and held that Rules framed under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution cannot be said to be an Act of Parliament or of State Legislature. It is observed and held that the power of Governor under Para 5(1) of Schedule V of the Constitution is restricted to modifying or not to apply,  Acts   of   the   Parliament  or   Legislature   of   the State. Thus, Rules could not have been amended in the exercise of the powers conferred under Para 5(1) of the Schedule V. It is further observed and held that the Rules made under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution cannot be said to be an enactment by the State Legislature. (paras 52 to 57). Page   82  of   107 18.4. While answering question 1(c) viz.  can the exercise of the   powers   conferred   under   Para   5(1)   of   Fifth Schedule   override   fundamental   rights   guaranteed under Part III, after considering the decisions of this Court in the case of  Kesavananda Bharati Vs. State  reported in    of Kerala (1973) 4 SCC 225; Waman Rao Vs. Union of India   reported in   (1981) 2 SCC 362; I.R. Coelho (Dead) by Lrs. Vs. State of T.N.  reported in   (2007)   2  SCC   1; S.R.   Chaudhuri   Vs.   State   of Punjab   reported in   (2001) 7 SCC 126 ;   Ajay Hasia Vs.   Khalid   Mujib   Sehravadi   reported   in   (1981)   1 SCC 722;   E.P. Royappa Vs. State of Tamil Nadu reported   in     (1974)   2   SCC   3; Maneka   Gandhi   Vs. Union   of   India   reported   in   (1978)   1   SCC   248; Ramana   Dayaram Shetty Vs. International Airport   reported in   Authority  of India and Ors. (1979)  3 SCC 489;   Neelima Misra Vs. Harinder Kaur Paintal reported in  (1990) 2 SCC 746  and  Peerless General Finance and Investment Co. Ltd Vs. Reserve Bank Page   83  of   107 of India   reported in   (1992) 2 SCC 343 , it is finally observed and held that the power conferred on the Governor   to   deal   with   the   scheduled   areas   is   not meant to prevail over the Constitution. The power of the Governor is pari passu with the legislative power of Parliament and the State. The legislative power can be exercised by the Parliament or the State subject to the   provisions   of   Part   III   of   the   Constitution. Thereafter, it is ultimately observed and held that the power   of   the   Governor   does   not   supersede   the fundamental rights guaranteed under Part III of the Constitution. It has to be exercised subject to Part III and other provisions of the Constitution. It is further observed   and   held   that   when   Para   5   of   the   Fifth Schedule  confers   power   on  the   Governor,  it  is   not meant to confer an arbitrary power. The Constitution can never aim to confer any arbitrary power on the constitutional authorities. They are to be exercised in a   legal   and   rational   manner   keeping   in   view   the objectives   and   provisions   of   the   Constitution.   The powers are not in derogation but in the furtherance of Page   84  of   107 the   Constitutional   aims   and   objectives.   (para   78). While   holding   so,   the   Constitutional   Bench   also considered the effect of the non­obstante clause used in para 5(1) of the Fifth Schedule of the Constitution. While   considering   the   effect   of   the   non­obstante clause, it is observed in para 69, 70, 74 and 75 as under: “6 9.   Para   5(1)   of   the   Fifth   Schedule   of   the Constitution   starts   with   a   nonobstante   clause. What is the effect of the non obstante clause vis­a­ vis   the   applicability   to   other   provisions   of   the Constitution? Whether the provisions of Para 5(1) prevail over all other provisions of the Constitution? Whether the fundamental rights in Part III of the Constitution   are   inapplicable   and   need   not   be satisfied? 70.   The provision of the Fifth Schedule beginning with the words “notwithstanding anything in this Constitution” cannot be construed as taking away the   provision   outside   the   limitations   on   the amending   power   and   has   to   be   harmoniously construed   consistent   with   the   foundational principles   and   the   basic   features   of   the Constitution. XXXXXXXXXXXX 74.  The nonobstante clause contained in Para 5(1) of the Fifth Schedule of the Constitution means the Governor   can   exercise   power   in   spite   of   the provisions   contained   in  Article   245  of   the Constitution, conferring the power upon Parliament to make laws and the legislature of the State. The Parliament   has   the   power   to   enact   the   law.   It cannot be questioned on the ground that it would have extra territorial operation. Page   85  of   107 75.   The   nonobstante   clause   has   also   been considered   in  Smt.   Parayankandiyal   Eravath Kanapravan Kalliani  Amma   & Ors.  v.   K.  Devi  & Ors.,   AIR   1996   SC   1963.   The   scope   has   to   be considered in the context and purpose for which it has been carved out.” 18.5. As observed herein above, we are also of the opinion that the non­obstante clause contained in para 5(1) of the Fifth Schedule of the Constitution shall be read with   respect   to   power   of   the   Governor   to   suspend and/or modify the law made by the Parliament despite Articles 244 and 245 of the Constitution of India. It cannot   be   read   as   conferring   upon   the   Governor absolute   power   and/or   unfettered   power, notwithstanding the provisions contained in Part III of the Constitution. 19. While   answering   question   no.2   viz.   whether   100% reservation   is   permissible   under   the   Constitution, after   referring   to   and   /   or   considering   various decisions of this Court on 100% reservation and after considering Articles 14, 15 and 16 and other relevant Constitutional   provisions   and   after   taking   into Page   86  of   107 consideration   decision   of   this   Court   in   the   case   of , it is ultimately observed and Indra Sawhney (supra) held   that   the   reservation   that   is   permissible   by protective   mode,   by   making   it   100   percent   would become discriminatory and impermissible. It is further observed   and   held   that   the   opportunity   of   public employment   cannot   be   denied   unjustly   to   the incumbents, and it is not the prerogative of a few. The citizens have equal rights, and the total exclusion of others by creating an opportunity for one class is not contemplated   by   the   founding   fathers   of   the Constitution of India. 19.1. Thus,   in   the   case   of   Chebrolu   Leela   Prasad   Rao (supra) , after considering the relevant Constitutional provisions   in   detail   including   the   powers   of   the Governor conferred in para 5(1) of the Fifth Schedule of the Constitution of India, it is ultimately observed and held as under: “ 166.  We answer the questions referred to us thus: Page   87  of   107 Question   No.1:   The   Governor   in   the   exercise   of powers   under   Para   5(1),   Fifth   Schedule   of   the Constitution, can exercise the powers concerning any   particular   Act   of   the   Parliament   or   the legislature of the State. The  Governor  can direct that   such   law   shall   not   apply   to   the   Scheduled Areas   or   any   part   thereof.   The   Governor   is empowered   to   apply   such   law   to   the   Scheduled Area  or  any  part  thereof  in the State  subject  to such   exceptions   and   modifications   as   he   may specify   in   the   notification   and   can   also   issue   a notification with retrospective effect. Question   No.1(a):   The   Governor   is   empowered under Para 5(1), Fifth Schedule of the Constitution, to direct that any particular Act of Parliament or the Legislature of the State, shall not apply to a Scheduled Area or apply the same with exceptions and   modifications.   The   Governor   can   make   a provision   within   the   parameters   of   amendment/ modification   of   the   Act   of   Parliament   or   State legislature.   The   power   to   make   new laws/regulations,   is   provided   in   Para   5(2),   Fifth Schedule   of   the   Constitution   for   the   purpose mentioned therein, not under Para 5(1) of the Fifth Schedule to the Constitution of India. Question No.1(b): The power of the Governor under Para 5(1), Fifth Schedule to the Constitution does not   extend   to   subordinate   legislation,   it   is   with respect to an Act enacted in the sovereign function by the Parliament or legislature of the State which can be dealt with. Question No.1(c): The Governor’s power under Para 5(1)   of   the   Fifth   Schedule   to  the   Constitution  is subject   to   some   restrictions,   which   have   to   be observed by the Parliament or the legislature of the State   while   making   law  and   cannot   override  the fundamental rights guaranteed under Part III of the Constitution. Question No.1(d): In exercise of power under Para 5(1)  of  the  Fifth  Schedule  to  the  Constitution of India, the Governor cannot override the notification issued by the President in the exercise of powers under  Article 371D.The power has to be exercised harmoniously   with   such   an   order   issued   under Page   88  of   107 Article 371D, not in conflict thereof. Question   No.2:   G.O.Ms.   No.3/2000   providing   for 100 per cent reservation is not permissible under the Constitution, the outer limit is 50 per cent as specified in Indra Sawhney (supra). Question No.3: The notification in question cannot be   treated   as   classification   made   underArticle 16(1).Once   the   reservation   has   been   provided   to Scheduled   Tribes   under  Article   16(4),   no   such power   can   be   exercised   under  Article   16(1).  The notification is violative of Articles 14 and 16(4) of the Constitution of India. Question No.4 : The conditions of eligibility in the notification with a cut­off date i.e. 26­1­1950, to avail the  benefits  of  reservation,   is  unreasonable and arbitrary one.” 20. Applying law laid down by the Constitution Bench of this Court in the case of  Chebrolu Leela Prasad Rao ,   to   the   facts   of   the   case   on   hand,   the (supra) impugned Order/ Notification  No.5938 and the Order No.5939 dated 14.07.2016 providing 100% reservation for   the   local   residents   of   concerned   Scheduled Districts/ Areas only can be said to be  (1) beyond the scope and ambit of powers conferred upon   the   Governor   under   para   5(1)   of   the   Fifth Schedule of the Constitution of India;  Page   89  of   107 (2) 100% reservation provided for the local residents of the concerned Scheduled Districts / Areas only would be violative of Article 16(2) of the Constitution of India and affecting rights of the other candidates / citizens of non­scheduled areas / Districts guaranteed under Part III of the Constitution of India;  (3) the exercise of powers by the Governor under para 5(1) of the Fifth Schedule of the Constitution of India modifying  Recruitment Rules, 2015 which are framed under Article 309 of the Constitution of India which can be said to be subordinate legislation and cannot be   said   to   be   an   Act   or   the   Law   made   by   the Parliament and / or State Legislature is beyond the scope and ambit of Governor’s power under  para 5(1) of the Fifth Schedule of the Constitution of India . 21. The submission on behalf of the appellants and State that the decision of this Court in the case of  Chebrolu Leela Prasad Rao (supra)   shall not be applicable to the facts of the case on hand inasmuch as in the said case there was 100% reservation for Scheduled Tribe Page   90  of   107 candidates which was held to be violating the rights of the other reserved category candidates also and that the  decision  of this  Court in the  case  of   Chebrolu Leela   Prasad   Rao   (supra)   is   required   to   be reconsidered is concerned has no substance. What is required to be considered is the   ratio   decidendi   and law laid down by this Court. There is clear law laid down by Constitution Bench of this Court as noted above.  The decision of the Constitution Bench which is   rendered   after   considering   the   relevant constitutional provisions and a number of decisions of this Court is as such binding on us. It cannot be said that   the   relevant   Constitutional   provisions   and/or binding decisions of this Court have not been dealt with   and/or   considered   by   this   Court.   The Constitutional   Bench   decision   of   this   Court   in   the case   of   Chebrolu   Leela   Prasad   Rao   (supra)   also cannot be said to be  per incuriam        ignoring and/or taking   a   contrary   view   than   any   of   the   binding decision of this Court. As such and as observed herein Page   91  of   107 above, we reiterate that we are bound by the law laid down by this Court, more particularly, a Constitution Bench decision of this Court. We see no reason not to follow the binding Constitution Bench decision of this Court   in   the   case   of   Chebrolu   Leela   Prasad   Rao . We see no reason to take a different view than (supra) the view taken by the Constitution Bench of this court in the case of  . We Chebrolu Leela Prasad Rao (supra) also  see  no  reason   to  refer   the  matter  to  a  Larger Bench as prayed by some of the counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants – candidates belonging to the Scheduled Areas/ Districts. 22. One other submission which is made by the learned Advocate   General   appearing   on   behalf   of   the   State before the High Court was that in order to overcome the   factors   of   low   human   development   indices, backwardness, poverty etc., in the scheduled districts and to secure justice ­ social, economic and political, the   notification   was   issued   by   the   Governor   of   the State for protecting the interests of the residents in Page   92  of   107 the scheduled districts. That even otherwise, it would be of immense benefit to the school­going children in the scheduled districts, if they are taught in their own tribal   language   by   the   local   teachers,   than   the outsiders, who may not be well conversant with the local  language.   At  the   outset,   it  is  required   to  be noted   that   such   submission   was   not   pressed   into service heavily by any of the counsel appearing on behalf   of   the   appellants   before   the   High   Court. However, it is to be noted that in the case of  Chebrolu Leela Prasad Rao (supra)   the Constitution Bench of this Court also considered the very submission and negated the same by observing in para 130 and 131 as under: “ 130. No law mandates that only tribal teachers can teach in the scheduled areas; thus, the action defies the logic. Another reason given is the phenomenal absenteeism of teachers in schools. That could not have   been   a   ground   for   providing   100   percent reservation to the tribal teachers in the areas. It is not the case that incumbents of other categories are not available in the areas. When a district is a unit for the employment, the ground applied for providing reservation   for   phenomenal   absenteeism   is irrelevant and could not have formed the basis for providing 100 percent reservation. The problem of absenteeism   could   have   been   taken   care   of   by providing better facilities and other incentives. Page   93  of   107 131. The reason assigned that reservation was to cover impetus in the scheduled areas in the field of education   and   to   strengthen   educational infrastructure is also equally bereft of substance. By depriving opportunity to the others, it cannot be said that any impetus could have been given to the cause of students and effective education, and now that could have been strengthened. The provisions of 100 percent reservation are ignoring the merit. Thus, it would   weaken   the   educational   infrastructure   and the merit and the standard of education imparted in the   schools.   Educational   development   of   students cannot   be   made   only   by   a   particular   class   of teachers   appointed   by   providing   reservation, ignoring merit in toto. The ideal approach would be that teachers are selected based on merit.” 22.1. Even otherwise, it is to be noted that it may be true that so far as basic education (at the level of primary section)   is   concerned,   it   may   help   student   at   the primary level (while providing basic education) to be taught in their own tribal language.   But the same principle may not be applicable when question is of th providing   education   at   higher   level   viz.   above   5 standard.   Therefore,   if   the   candidates   belonging   to other areas (non­Scheduled Areas/ Districts) are given an opportunity to impart education (who may be more meritorious   than   the   candidates   belonging   to   the Scheduled   Areas   /   Districts)   than   it   will   be   more beneficial to the students belonging to the Scheduled Page   94  of   107 Areas and their quality of the education shall certainly improve. The quality of education of the school­going children   cannot   be   compromised   by   giving   100% reservation in favour of the teachers of the same/some districts   and   prohibiting   the   appointment   to   more meritorious teachers. 23. At this stage, it is required to be noted that even the impugned   Order/Notification   dated   14.07.2016   and the   advertisement   providing   100%   reservations   for local   residents   of   concerned   Scheduled Areas/Districts can be said to be violative of Article 13 of the Constitution of India also. As observed herein above, the impugned Order/Notification making 100% reservation   for   the   local   resident   of   the   concerned Scheduled Districts/Areas is violative of Article 16(2) of   the   Constitution   of   India   as   it   affects   the fundamental   rights   guaranteed   to   the   candidate belonging   to   the   non­Scheduled   Areas   guaranteed under   part   III   of   the   Constitution   of   India.   As   per Article 13 of the Constitution of India, the State shall Page   95  of   107 not make any law which takes away or abridges the rights conferred by this Part and any law made in contravention of Article 13(2) shall to the extent of the contravention,   be   void.   Therefore,   also   impugned Notification/Order/Advertisement   making   100% reservation   for   the   local   resident   of   the   concerned Scheduled Areas / Districts shall be ultra vires Article 13 of the Constitution of India and shall be void.  24. Even under Article 16(3) of the Constitution of India, it is the Parliament alone, which is authorized to make any law prescribing, in regard to a class or classes of employment   or   appointment   to   an   office   under   the Government of, or any local or other authority within, a   State   of   Union   Territory,   any   requirement   as   to residence within the State or Union territory prior to such employment or appointment. As per Article 35 of the   Constitution   of   India,   notwithstanding   anything contained   in   the   Constitution,   the   Parliament   shall have and the Legislature of a State shall  not have the power to make laws with respect to any of the matters Page   96  of   107 which, under clause (3) of Article 16 may be provided for   law   made   by   Parliament.   Therefore,   impugned Notification/Order  making  100%  reservation  for  the local   resident   of   the   concerned   Scheduled Area/Districts (reservation on the basis of resident) is ultra   vires   to   Article   35   r/w   Article   16(3)   of   the Constitution of India. 25. Applying the law laid down by this Court in the case of  and in view of the Chebrolu Leela Prasad Rao (supra) above discussion and for the reasons stated above, the High Court has not committed any error in concluding and holding that the Notification No.5938 and Order No.5939   dated   14.7.2016   issued   by   the   State Government providing 100% reservation for the local residents of concerned Scheduled Districts/Areas as being   unconstitutional   and   ultra   vires   Articles   14, 13(2), 15 and 16(2) of the Constitution of India. It is rightly observed and held that said Notification and Order would also violate Articles 16(3) and 35(a­i) of the Constitution of India. The High Court has also Page   97  of   107 rightly observed and held that aforesaid Notification and Order is ultra vires to paragraph 5(1) of the Fifth Schedule   of   the   Constitution   of   India.   We   are   in complete agreement with the view taken by the High Court. 26. Now,   so   far   as   the   prayer   made   on   behalf   of   the respective appellants herein­ candidates belonging to the   Scheduled   Districts   /   Areas   who   were   already appointed   and   whose   appointments   are   held   to   be illegal is concerned and their plea that the judgment of the High Court may be made applicable prospectively is concerned, the same may not be accepted. Reliance is placed upon the order passed by this Court in the case of  Chebrolu Leela Prasad Rao (supra) , by which, even this Court saved the appointments already made and the another decision of this Court in the case of Kailash Chand Sharma (supra)  is concerned, such a prayer   is   not   to   be   accepted.   Once   the Notification/Order   dated   14.07.2016   are   held   to   be ultra   vires,   as   a   necessary   consequences, Page   98  of   107 appointments   made   pursuant   to   such unconstitutional Notification/Order shall have to be set aside and such appointments as such cannot be regularized. As observed and held by this Court in the case of Secretary,   State of Karnataka and Ors. Vs. ,   there   is   a   distinction   between Umadevi     (supra) illegal and irregular appointment and that the former cannot be regularized. 26.1. Now, so far as reliance placed upon the decision / order passed by this Court in the case of   Chebrolu Leela   Prasad   Rao   (supra)   (para   167   to   169)   is concerned, at the outset, it is required to be noted that before this Court the appointments were made since   1986   onwards   and   such   appointments continued for a number of years and therefore, this Court   saved   the   appointments   already   made   which were continued for a number of years. While saving the appointments already made (which as such were found to be illegal), this Court specifically observed that   “in   the   peculiar   facts   and   circumstances,   the Page   99  of   107 incumbents, who have been appointed, cannot be said to   be   at   fault   and   they   belong   to   the   Scheduled Tribes”.   Even   saving   of   the   appointments   was conditional as observed in para 168. 26.2. Now, so far as reliance placed upon the decision of this   Court   in   the   case   of   Kailash   Chand   Sharma (supra)  in support of the prayer to apply judgment of the   High   Court   prospectively   and/or   to   save appointments already made is concerned, it is to be noted that in the said judgment also in para 47, it is specifically observed by this Court that the Court has moulded the relief on a consideration of special facts and circumstances of the case by acting within the framework   of   powers   vested   in   this   Court   under Article 142 of the Constitution. It is further observed that   even   the   judgment   may   not   be   treated   as   a binding   precedent   in   any   case   that   may   arise   in future.   Therefore,   once   this   Court   has   specifically observed that the said judgment may not be treated as a  binding precedent  in any  case that may arise  in Page   100  of   107 future,   the   said   judgment   ought   not   to   have   been relied upon on behalf of the appellants. 26.3. In the present case, impugned Notification / Order is of the year 2016. The TGT recruitment process was initiated   vide   advertisement   dated   28.12.2016   as modified   on   04.02.2017   and   same   came   to   be challenged   during   the   pendency   of   the   recruitment process in the year 2017 itself. It is also required to be noted   that   by   order   dated   21.2.2019   the   Division Bench   of   the   High   Court   directed   that   notice   be published   in   the   daily   newspapers   having   wide circulation   about   institution   of   the   writ   petition   so that the person interested may intervene in the writ petition. Pursuant to such notice, several interlocutory applications/intervener applications came to be filed, which   came   to   be   allowed   by   the   High   Court. Thereafter,   by   order   dated   18.09.2019,   taking   into consideration   the   question   of   Constitutional importance   involved   in   the   matters,   the   Division Bench  of the  High Court  referred the  matter to be Page   101  of   107 decided by a Larger Bench. By the same order dated 18.09.2019,   the   High   Court   stayed   the   further implementation   and   operation   of   the   impugned Notification   No.5938   and   Order   No.5939   dated 14.7.2016, subject to the appointments already made, if any. Thus, from the aforesaid it can be seen that the original   writ   petitioners   are   always   vigilant   and diligent and approached the High Court at the first available   opportunity.   Their   valuable   right   for consideration  of  their  cases  for  appointment  in the Scheduled Districts / Areas have been taken away. They   have   been   successful   before   the   High   Court. Therefore, in the facts and circumstance of the case, the decision relied upon on behalf of the appellants to make impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court prospectively shall not be applicable to the facts   of   the   case   on   hand.   In   the   facts   and circumstances of the case, the prayer on behalf of the appellants   herein   to   make   the   impugned   judgment and   order   passed   by   the   High   Court   applicable Page   102  of   107 prospectively,   deserves   to   be   rejected   and   is accordingly rejected. 27. However,   at   the   same   time   and   in   the   facts   and circumstances of the case and more particularly, by quashing and setting aside the appointments already made there is a likelihood of more complication which would not be in the larger public interest. Hence, we are of the opinion that this is a fit case to mould the relief. Apart from the fact that the appellants herein – selected   candidates   belonging   to   the   Scheduled Districts/Areas are already working since last about three years, in case appointments already made are not protected then thousands of schools in the State of   Jharkhand   would   be   without   teachers   and   the ultimate   sufferers   would   be   the   children   of   tribal areas. In view of the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court, by which, the High Court has   held   all   the   appointments   made   in   Scheduled Districts/Areas illegal and has further directed to go for fresh recruitment, the State will have to undergo Page   103  of   107 fresh   recruitment   process   which   may   take considerable time and, in the meantime, there shall be vacancies and number of schools in the tribal areas shall be without teachers. Therefore, the Court has to strike a balance between the rights of the original writ petitioners   as   well   as   persons/teachers   already appointed (whose appointments are held to be illegal) and   also   the   public   interest.   Hence,   we   are   of   the opinion   that   while   moulding   the   relief,   instead   of initiating a fresh recruitment process, if directions are issued for preparation of fresh selection list based on revised merit and based on already published cut off obtained by the last selected candidate in each TGT subject against respective categories., it will meet ends of   justice   and   striking   the   balance   between   the competing rights so that persons already appointed may not have to lose their employment/job and at the same   time   the   candidates   belonging   to   the   non­ Scheduled   Districts/Areas   may   also   get   their opportunity for appointment as a teacher on merits in the Scheduled Districts/Areas. We are of the view that Page   104  of   107 no useful purpose will be served to go in for fresh/ de novo   recruitment   process   as   directed   by   the   High Court in the impugned judgment and order. 28. In view of the above discussion and for the reasons stated   above,   we   uphold   the   common   impugned judgment   and   order   passed   by   the   High   Court declaring   the   impugned   Notification/Order   dated 14.07.2016   as   unconstitutional   and   ultra   vires Articles 14, 16(2), 16(3) and 35(a­i) of the Constitution of India. We are in complete agreement with the view taken by the High Court. Present Appeals challenging the impugned common judgment and order passed by the High Court are hereby dismissed to the aforesaid extent.  However, at the same time, the directions issued by   the   High   Court   in   the   impugned   judgment   and order while setting aside all the appointments made pursuant to the Notification / Order dated 14.07.2016 and  Advertisement No.21 of 2016 dated 28.12.2016 as modified on 04.12.2017 and to go in for fresh/ de novo Page   105  of   107 recruitment process for the Scheduled Areas/Districts is hereby modified. It is now directed that instead of fresh/ de novo  recruitment process by setting aside the appointments   already   made   in   the   Scheduled Districts/Areas, the State shall revise the merit list based on the already published cut off obtained by the last selected candidates in each TGT subject against the respective categories with respect to entire State and   respective   candidates   belonging   to   the   non­ Scheduled Areas and Scheduled Areas (Districts) shall be   adjusted   accordingly   on   the   basis   of   individual merit  of   the   candidates.   The   present  directions   are issued   considering   the   peculiar   facts   and circumstances   of   the   case   and   more   particularly considering   the   fact   that   there   are   already   vacant posts of teachers in the State (in both Scheduled and non­Scheduled Area). We are of the view that if the appointments already made are set aside and fresh de novo recruitment process for such posts is initiated, a number of schools in the Scheduled Areas shall be without any teacher which may ultimately affect larger Page   106  of   107 public interest and education of concerned children in the Scheduled Areas.  Present direction is issued in exercise of powers under Article 142 of the Constitution of India in the larger public interest of Scheduled Areas/Districts.  Present   appeals   are   partly   allowed   to   the aforesaid   extent   modifying   the   impugned   common judgment   and   order   passed   by   the   High   Court   as observed herein above.  In the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs. ……………………………….J.         [M.R. SHAH] ……………………………….J.               [B.V. NAGARATHNA]  NEW DELHI; AUGUST 02, 2022 Page   107  of   107