9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2003 (8) TMI 535 - SC - Indian LawsWhere a person belonging to a caste or tribe specified for the purposes of the Constitution to be a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe in relation to State A migrates to State B where a caste or tribe with the same nomenclature is specified for the purposes of the Constitution to be a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe in relation to that State B will that person be entitled to claim the privileges and benefits admissible to persons belonging to the Scheduled Castes and/or Scheduled Tribes in State B?
Issues Involved:
- Interpretation of reservation benefits for Scheduled Tribe candidates in public services in a different state. - Validity of claiming reservation benefits based on Scheduled Tribe status in a state where the tribe is not recognized. - Consideration of migration and entitlement to reservation benefits for Scheduled Tribe candidates. - Application of Government of India's Circular on issuance of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe certificates for migrants. Interpretation of Reservation Benefits: The case involved a dispute regarding the reservation benefits for a candidate belonging to a Naga tribe, which was not recognized as a Scheduled Tribe in the State of U.P. The High Court directed the State of U.P. to offer the appointment to the candidate on the basis of his Scheduled Tribe status. However, the Supreme Court referred to previous judgments emphasizing that Scheduled Tribe status must be recognized in the specific state for reservation benefits to apply. The Court held that the candidate could not claim reservation benefits in U.P. as 'Naga' was not specified as a Scheduled Tribe in the state. Validity of Reservation Claim: The respondent claimed Scheduled Tribe status based on his Naga tribal identity, supported by certificates from Nagaland authorities. The Court acknowledged the authenticity of the certificates but emphasized that reservation benefits are state-specific. The absence of 'Naga' as a recognized Scheduled Tribe in U.P. meant the candidate could not avail reservation benefits in the state, as per constitutional provisions and previous rulings. Migration and Entitlement to Reservation: The judgment highlighted the principle that Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe status is state-specific, and individuals migrating to a different state cannot automatically claim the same benefits there. The Court referred to previous cases emphasizing that the considerations for specifying a caste or tribe for reservation benefits vary between states, and migrants must adhere to the rules of the new state for entitlement to benefits. The ruling underscored the need to protect disadvantaged groups in each state without allowing migrants to claim benefits not applicable in their new place of residence. Government Circular on Certificate Issuance: The respondent's counsel cited a Government Circular allowing the issuance of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe certificates for migrants. However, the Court clarified that such certificates are for the state of origin and do not entitle migrants to claim benefits in the new state. The Circular reiterated that migrants should seek benefits from their state of origin, not the state to which they have migrated. The Court upheld the Circular's position, emphasizing that migrants cannot derive benefits in the new state based on certificates issued for their state of origin. In conclusion, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court's decision, ruling that the candidate could not be considered a Scheduled Tribe candidate in U.P. The judgment highlighted the importance of state-specific recognition for reservation benefits and the limitations on claiming such benefits across states due to migration. The Court directed the appellants to consider the candidate in the general category and offer appointment based on merit compared to other general category candidates.
|
