Supreme Court clarifies reservation benefits for migrant Scheduled Tribes in Union Territories: Director Transport Department vs. Abhinav Dipakbhai Patel (2019)

Date of the Judgment: May 7, 2019
Citation: (2019) INSC 463
Judges: L. Nageswara Rao, J., M.R. Shah, J.
Can a person belonging to a Scheduled Tribe in one state claim reservation benefits in a Union Territory if they migrate there? The Supreme Court addressed this question in a case involving the appointment of an Assistant Motor Vehicle Inspector in Dadra and Nagar Haveli. The court examined whether a person belonging to a Scheduled Tribe in Gujarat could be denied reservation benefits in Dadra and Nagar Haveli simply because they were not originally from that territory. The judgment was delivered by a two-judge bench comprising Justice L. Nageswara Rao and Justice M.R. Shah.

Case Background

Mr. Abhinav Dipakbhai Patel, the Respondent, belongs to the “Dhodia” caste, which is recognized as a Scheduled Tribe in both Gujarat and the Union Territory of Dadra and Nagar Haveli. He possessed a caste certificate from Gujarat. After moving to Dadra and Nagar Haveli, he acquired a residential accommodation and a Voter’s ID card, establishing his residency there.

In 2014, the Union Territory of Dadra and Nagar Haveli issued an advertisement for two Assistant Motor Vehicle Inspector positions, with one post reserved for the Scheduled Tribe category. The advertisement stated that all Indian citizens could apply, but those with “Domicile” in Dadra and Nagar Haveli would receive preference.

Mr. Patel applied for the reserved post and appeared for the written examination on July 1, 2015. The results for the unreserved post were announced on July 11, 2015, but the result for the Scheduled Tribe vacancy was withheld. Despite his representations and the intervention of the National Commission for Scheduled Tribes, he was not appointed. The National Commission directed the authorities to appoint him, but this was not followed. Consequently, Mr. Patel filed a Writ Petition in the High Court of Judicature at Bombay.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The High Court of Judicature at Bombay ruled in favor of Mr. Patel, directing the authorities to appoint him as Assistant Motor Vehicle Inspector. The High Court noted that while the Union Territory gave weightage to local candidates, it did not exclude outsiders from consideration. The court held that Mr. Patel, being a resident of the Union Territory, was entitled to be considered for appointment under the reserved category, even though he had migrated from Gujarat.

The Director Transport Department, Union Territory Administration of Dadra and Nagar Haveli, then appealed to the Supreme Court against the High Court’s decision.

Legal Framework

The case revolves around the interpretation of the Constitution (Dadra and Nagar Haveli) Scheduled Tribes Order, 1962, which recognizes the “Dhodia” caste as a Scheduled Tribe in the Union Territory of Dadra and Nagar Haveli for its residents.

The Court also considered the Office Memorandum issued by the Union Territory on 01.09.2006 which stated that persons belonging to Scheduled Castes/ Scheduled Tribes domiciled in the Union Territory Administration of Dadra and Nagar Haveli are to be considered for appointment to public posts in reserved categories.

The Supreme Court also referred to Articles 341(1) and 342(1) of the Constitution of India which empowers the President to specify the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes in relation to a State or Union Territory.

Arguments

Appellants’ Arguments:

• The Appellants argued that the Union Territory’s policy, framed on 01.09.2006, stipulated that only local candidates from the reserved categories would be considered for appointment.
• They contended that there should be no difference between migrants of the Scheduled Tribe from one State to another and from one State to a Union Territory.
• The Appellants submitted that the benefit of reservation under the Scheduled Tribes category was restricted only to local candidates and not migrants.
• They relied on judgments such as Action Committee on Issue of Caste Certificate to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes in the State of Maharashtra and Another v. Union of India & Another [ (1994) 5 SCC 244 ], S. Pushpa and Others v. Sivachanmugavelu and Others [ (2005) 3 SCC 1 ], Puducherry Scheduled Caste People Welfare Association v. Chief Secretary to Government, Union Territory of Pondicherry and Others [ (2014) 9 SCC 236 ], and Bir Singh v. Delhi Jal Board and Others [ (2018) 10 SCC 313 ] to support their claim that reservation benefits are limited to those domiciled in the Union Territory.
• They also argued that a residence of at least 10 years is required for a person to be considered for appointment on a public post as a Scheduled Tribe.

Respondent’s Arguments:

• The Respondent argued that the Office Memorandum issued by the Union Territory did not exclude Scheduled Tribes from other states from being considered for appointment to a public post in the reserved category.
• He contended that local candidates were given weightage, which applied to Scheduled Tribes as well.
• He pointed out that he secured the highest marks among the eligible candidates and was eligible for appointment even in the unreserved category.
• The Respondent relied on the judgment of this Court in Bir Singh (supra) to argue that the law laid down in Pushpa’s (supra) case has not been disturbed.
• He argued that a resident of the Union Territory is entitled to be considered for appointment to the public post as a reserved category candidate and cannot be deprived of this status simply because he is a migrant. He had been residing in the Union Territory for six years before the date of the advertisement.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court did not explicitly frame issues in a separate section. However, the core issue before the court was:

• Whether a person belonging to a Scheduled Tribe in one state can claim reservation benefits in a Union Territory if they migrate there and become a resident of that Union Territory.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

Judgment

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• The court distinguished Marri Chandra Shekhar Rao v. Dean, Seth G.S. Medical College and Others [(1990) 3 SCC 130], stating that it dealt with a situation where a community was not recognized as a Scheduled Tribe in a particular state.
• The court followed S. Pushpa and Others v. Sivachanmugavelu and Others [(2005) 3 SCC 1], which held that migrant Scheduled Caste candidates are eligible for appointment against reserved posts in a Union Territory.
• The court referred to Puducherry Scheduled Caste People Welfare Association v. Chief Secretary to Government, Union Territory of Pondicherry and Others [(2014) 9 SCC 236] to reiterate that Presidential Orders cannot be altered by executive action.
• The court relied on Bir Singh v. Delhi Jal Board and Others [(2018) 10 SCC 313], to reiterate that Presidential Notifications cannot be modified by the Executive and that the view expressed in S. Pushpa (supra) did not require reconsideration.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court was primarily influenced by the fact that the Presidential Notification for the Union Territory of Dadra and Nagar Haveli extended reservation benefits based on residence, not origin. This meant that if a person was a resident of the Union Territory and belonged to a Scheduled Tribe recognized there, they were eligible for reservation benefits, regardless of where they originally came from. The Court also emphasized that the Union Territory’s policy of giving weightage to local candidates did not exclude outsiders from consideration. The Court also noted that the Respondent had been residing in the Union Territory for six years prior to the date of the advertisement.

Fact:Law Ratio

The Court’s reasoning was based on the interpretation of the Presidential Notification and the Union Territory’s policy. The Court rejected the argument that reservation benefits were limited to those who were originally from the Union Territory, emphasizing that the key factor was residence. The Court also rejected the argument that a 10-year residency was required, as there was no evidence to support this claim.

The Court quoted the following from the judgment:

“The Presidential Notification issued for the Union Territory of Dadra and Nagar Haveli extends the benefit of reservation to the Scheduled Tribes mentioned therein on the basis of residence and not on the basis of origin.”

“We find no force in the point canvassed by the learned counsel for the Appellants that the reservation for Scheduled Tribes in the Union Territory of Dadra and Nagar Haveli is not available to migrant Scheduled Tribes.”

“Gross injustice is caused to the Respondent by the action of the Appellants in not appointing him in spite of the advice of the Union of India and the direction issued by the National Commission for Scheduled Tribes.”

There were no dissenting opinions in this case. The judgment was delivered by a two-judge bench, with both judges concurring.

The Supreme Court’s decision clarifies that reservation benefits in Union Territories are based on residence, not origin. This means that people who migrate to a Union Territory and become residents there are eligible for reservation benefits if they belong to a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe recognized in that territory. This decision is significant because it ensures that people are not denied reservation benefits simply because they moved from one state or territory to another.

Key Takeaways

• Reservation benefits in Union Territories are based on residence, not origin.
• Migrant Scheduled Tribe members who are residents of a Union Territory are eligible for reservation benefits in that territory.
• Union Territories cannot deny reservation benefits to migrant Scheduled Tribe members solely on the basis of their origin.
• The Presidential Notification issued for a Union Territory is the key document for determining who is eligible for reservation benefits.
• The judgment reinforces the principle that executive orders cannot modify or alter Presidential Notifications.

Directions

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the High Court’s decision directing the authorities to appoint the Respondent as Assistant Motor Vehicle Inspector with effect from the date of appointment of other candidates from the same selection process.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that reservation benefits in Union Territories are based on residence, not origin. This clarifies the position of law and reinforces the principle that executive orders cannot modify or alter Presidential Notifications.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s judgment in Director Transport Department vs. Abhinav Dipakbhai Patel clarifies that a person belonging to a Scheduled Tribe in one state can claim reservation benefits in a Union Territory if they migrate there and become a resident of that Union Territory. The court emphasized that the Presidential Notification for the Union Territory extends reservation benefits based on residence, not origin. This decision ensures that migrant Scheduled Tribe members are not denied reservation benefits simply because they moved to a different territory.