S PUSHPA Vs. SIVACHANMUGAVELU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Leave granted in Special Leave Petition Nos. 7834 and 12370-371 of 2002.

(2.) The common point which arises for consideration in all the above- noted bunch of cases is as to whether a person belonging to a Scheduled Caste in relation to a particular State would be entitled to or not, for the benefits or concessions allowed to Scheduled Caste candidates, in the matter of employment, in any Union Territory where such person has migrated from the other State. Some persons belonging to the Scheduled Castes in relation to the State of Tamil Nadu migrated to the Union Territory of Pondicherry and on the basis of certain Notifications issued by the Government of India, as also the Union Territory of Pondicherry the benefit of reservation was made available to them and such persons thus got employment in the Union Territory of Pondicherry. The Central Administrative Tribunal, Bench at Madras, set aside such appointments/promotions with a direction to review the selection in regard to the reserved quota excluding the migrated Scheduled Caste candidates from consideration. In some matters where the petitions were filed in the High Court challenging the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal, the same view was taken upholding the judgment of the Central Administrative Tribunal. The Central Administrative Tribunal and the High Court have taken into consideration inter alia the decisions, rendered by this Court in the cases of Marri Chandrashekhar Rao vs. Dean, Seth G.S. Medical College and others, (1990) 3 SCC 130 and Action Committee on issue of Caste Certificate to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes in the State of Maharashtra and another vs. Union of India and another (1994) 5 SCC 244, in support of the view that a person who is in the list of the Scheduled Caste in a particular State, no doubt may migrate to any other State but he shall not carry with him the benefits or concessions as available in his State, to the State where he has migrated. That is to say he would not carry with him the status of a Scheduled Caste candidate to the State to which he has migrated, nor he can claim such benefit in that State as available to him as a Scheduled Caste candidate in his State.

(3.) Learned counsel for the appellants refers to the G.O. issued by the Government of India dated 4-2-1974 by which a clarification was conveyed to the Lt. Governor of Pondicherry that Scheduled Caste/Tribe candidates from outside the Union Territory of Pondicherry should also be considered for appointment to posts reserved for Scheduled Castes/Tribes in Pondicherry. Our attention has also been drawn to another Notification dated January 6, 1993 issued by the Government of Pondicherry referring to, amongst other, the Government order dated 4-2-1974 issued by the Government of India clarifying that since Pondicherry is a Union Territory, all orders regarding reservation for Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes in respect of posts/services under the Central Government are applicable to posts/services under the Pondicherry admission also. Therefore, Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe candidates from outside Pondicherry would also be eligible for vacancies reserved for Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes in the Union Territory administration. We dont think it would be necessary to refer to other letters or Notifications on the subject. The submission of the appellants is that under Art. 239 of the Constitution of India, the Union Territories are administered by the President, therefore, the Notifications and orders issued by the Government of India would govern the affairs in the Union Territory of Pondicherry. The case of Marri Chandrashekhar Rao (supra, it is submitted has, apart from other things, dealt with a situation where persons had gone from one State to the other State and not from other State to a Union Territory. Same is the position in regard to the case of the Action Committee (supra). A reference has also been made to certain provisions of the Government of Union Territories Act, 1963 (Act 20 of 1963) and it is submitted that the Administrator or the Council of Ministers of a Union Territory is to comply with the directions of the President. Article 240 of the Constitution, has been referred, to submit that it is to be read with Arts. 239 and 239-A of the Constitution, where the powers have been given to the President to make regulations for the Union Territories including Pondicherry. The case of the appellants, therefore, is that directions issued by the Central Government are binding upon the Union Territories.