Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 3
CASE NO.:
Appeal (civil) 5186 of 2001
PETITIONER:
SUDHAKAR V1THAL KUMBHARE
RESPONDENT:
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS.
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 18/11/2003
BENCH:
V.N. KHARE CJ & S.B. SINHA & DR. AR. LAKSHMANAN
JUDGMENT:
JUDGMENT
2003 Supp(5) SCR 746
The following Order of the Court was delivered :
The appellant is originally a resident of village Sawargaon, post
Pandhurna, District Chhindwara in State of Madhya Pradesh. It is not
disputed that as a result of State reorganization, a part of the said
district being Chandrapur, which was originally in the State of Madhya
Pradesh, had gone into the State of Maharashtra. Earlier in the
Presidential Scheduled Tribes Order issued in the year 1950 the tribe
’Halba’ was recognized as Scheduled Tribe in the District of Chhindwara in
the State of Madhya Pradesh. After reorganization, when Chandrapur was
included within the territory of State of Maharashtra, the caste ’Halba’
was recognized as Scheduled Trible also in the State of Maharashtra. It is
also not disputed that the appellant herein was brought up and educated in
District of Chhindwara. Subsequently, he applied in response to an
advertisement for selection and appointment in the Maharashtra State
Electricity Board for the post of Junior Engineer [Civil]. It is not
disputed that he was selected and appointed against the non-reserved
vacancy on the basis of merit in the said post. In the year 1987, the
appellant was promoted to officiate as Assistant Engineer (Civil) against a
reserved vacancy on the basis of a certificate of being belonging to Halba
tribe issued by the competent authorities of the State of Madhya Pradesh.
On 22nd August, 1988, respondent no. 2 herein issued him show cause notice
as to why he should not be reverted from the post of Assistants Engineer as
he was not entitled to the benefit of reservation for Scheduled Tribe in
the State of Maharashtra. The appellant submitted an explanation to the
said show cause notice justifying his promotion against the reserved post.
Despite that explanation, the appellant was reverted from the post the of
Assistant Engineer to the post of Junior Engineer. Aggrieved, the appellant
filed a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution Challenging the
order of reversion. The High Court by its judgment and order dated 23rd
March, 2001 dismissed the petition on the ground that the petitioner who
comes from the State of Madhya Pradesh though belonged to Scheduled tribe
’Halba’ which is recognized as such in the State of Maharashtra is not
entitled to benefit of reservation. It is against the said judgment of the
High Court, the appellant is in appeal before us.
Mr. V.A. Mohta, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant, urged
that the question as to whether the appellant was entitled to the benefit
of reservation in the State of Maharashtra ought to have been referred to
the Statutory Committee constituted on the basis of directions issued by
this court in Kumari Madhuri Patil and Anr. v. Addl. Commissioner, Tribal
Development and Ors., [1994] 6 SCC 241, where it was directed that in
course of employment if any dispute arises as regard to the benefit of
reservation the matter is required to be referred to a Scrutiny Committee.
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 3
It is no doubt true that a Scheduled Tribe notified in one State may not be
given the benefits therefor in another State having regard to the plain
expression ’in relation to that State’ in Article 342 of the Constitution.
{See Action Committee on issue of Caste Certificate to Scheduled Castes and
Scheduled Tribes in the State of Maharashtra and Anr. v. Union of India and
Anr., JT (1994) 4 SC 423 and U.P. Public Service Commission, Allahabad v.
Sanjay Kumar Singh, JT (2003) 8, SC page 79.
But the question which arises for consideration herein appears to have not
been raised in any other case. It is not in dispute that the Scheduled
Castes and Scheduled Tribes have suffered disadvantages and denied
facilities for development and growth in several States. They are required
protective preferences, facilities and benefits inter alia in the form of
reservation, so as to enable them to compete on equal terms with the more
advantageous and developed sections of the Community. The question is as to
whether the appellant being a Scheduled Tribe Known as Halba/Halbi which
stands recognized both in the State of Madhya Pradesh as well as in the
State of Maharashtra having their origin in the Chhindwara region, a part
of which, on States’ reorganization, has come to State of Maharashtra, was
entitled to the benefit of reservation? It is one thing to say that the
expression ’in relation to that State’ occurring in Article 342 of the
Constitution of India should be given an effective or proper meaning so as
to exclude the possibility that a tribe which has been included as a
Scheduled Tribe in one State after consultation with the Governor for the
purpose of the Constitution may not get the same benefit in other State
whose Governor has not been consulted; but it is another thing to say that
when an area dominated by members of the same tribe belonging to the same
region which has been bifurcated, the members would not continue to get the
same benefit when the said tribe is recognized in both the States. In other
words, the question that is required to be posed and answered would be as
to whether the members of the Scheduled Tribe belonging to one region would
continue to get the same benefits despite bifurcation thereof in terms of
States’ Reorganization Act. With a view to find out as to whether any
particular area of the country was required to be given protection is a
matter which requires detailed investigation having regard to the fact that
both Pandhurna in the District of Chhindwara and the part of area of
Chandrapur at one point of time belonged to the same region and under the
Constitutional Scheduled Tribes Order 1950 as it originally stood the
Trible Halba/Halbi of that region may be given the same protection. In a
case of this nature the degree of disadvantages of various elements which
constitute the input for specification may not be totally different and the
State of Maharashtra even after reorganization might have agreed for
inclusion of the said Trible Halba/Halbi as a Scheduled Tribe in the State
of Maharashtra having regard to the said fact in mind.
Here we find that the Maharashtra State Electricity Board acting upon the
direction of the State Government has reverted the appellant without
referring the matter to the Scurtiny Committee which was not the correct
way to deal with the appellant’s case. In fact, in such a situation the
employer was required to refer the question before the Scrutiny Committee
which admittedly had been constituted and established for coming to the
matter. We may notice that in Kumari Madhuri Patil’s case [supra] this
Court observed:-
"The admission wrongly gained or appointment wrongly obtained on the basis
of false social status certificate necessarily has the effect of depriving
the genuine Scheduled Castes or Scheduled tribes or OBC candidates as
enjoined in the Constitution of the benefits conferred on them by the
Constitution. The genuine Candidates are also denied admission to
educational institutions or appointment to office or posts under a State
for want of social status certificate. The ineligible or spurious persons
who falsely gained entry resort to dilatory tactics and create hurdles in
completion of the inquiries by the scrutiny committee. It is true that the
applications for admission to educational institutions are generally made
by a parent, since on that date many a time the student may be a minor. It
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 3
is the parent or the guardian who may play fraud claiming false status
certificate"
Similar observation have been made in Director of Tribal Welfare v. Laveti
Giri, [1995] 4 SCC 32. This aspect of the matter has been noticed following
the observation of this Court in Kumari Madhuri Patil and Anr. v. Addl.
Commissioner Tribal Development, Thane and Ors., (second) [1997] 5 SCC 437
] in Punit Rai v. Dinesh Chaudhary, JT (2003) {Suppl. 1} SC 557 at 574]:-
3. "As regards prayer (b) read with direction no. (iv) of the order of this
Court, we too appreciate the inconvenience caused due to vast area of the
State. Therefore, instead of one committee of three officers, there will be
three Scheduled tribe/Caste Scrutiny Committees comprising of five member
with quorum of three members, as suggested in par 4 of the direction, to
take a decision. At Pune, Nasik and Nagpur, six caste scrutiny committees
for SCs, Denotified Tribes, Nomadic Tribes, other Backward Classes and the
Special Backward category in existence at Mumbai, Pune, Nasik, Aurangabad,
Amravati and Nagpur would continue to scrutinise the certificate issued by
the respective officers and take a decision in that behalf. In this regard,
it is also suggested by Shri Dholakia, learned senior council for the
applicant, that in case any certificate has been wronglfully refused by the
certificate issuing authority, the aforestated committees also would go
into the question and decide in that behalf, whether refusal was wrongful
and in case it finds that the refusal was wrongful, they are at liberty to
direct the authority to grant the certificate.
5. With regard to prayer (d), along with the vigilance cell, one research
officer/tribal development or social welfare officer would be associated in
finding the social status of eligibility of the officers."
In view of fact that the appellant’s case was not referred to the
appropriate Committee, the judgment and order under challenge deserves to
be set aside, t will be open to the Maharashtra State Electricity Board to
refer the matter o the Scrutiny Committee for verifying the eligibility of
the appellant. We direct that the appellant shall be reinstated forthwith
as Assistant Engineer and shall continue to hold the said post till the
matter is decided by the Committee. The appeal is allowed on the
aforementioned terms. There shall be no order as to cost.