S PUSHPA Vs. SIVACHANMUGAVELU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These appeals, by special leave, have been preferred against the judgment and order dated 5-11-1996 of the Central Administrative Tribunal (Madras Bench) by which O.A. No. 199/1996 and O.A. No. 214/1996 were allowed and selection made of migrant Scheduled Caste candidates against the quota reserved for Scheduled Castes on the post of Selection Grade Teachers in the selection held in the year 1995 in the Union Territory of Pondicherry was declared as illegal and invalid, and a further direction was issued to review the selection process with regard to the reserved quota by excluding the migrant Scheduled Caste candidates who had migrated after the relevant notification had been issued in the year 1964.

(2.) The Directorate of Education, Government of Pondicherry, issued an advertisement for making recruitment of 350 General Central Service Group C posts of Secondary Grade Teachers (for short SGT) wherein 56 posts were reserved for Scheduled Caste candidates (for short SC candidates). In response to the notification, the employment exchange sponsored the names of candidates in respect of various categories including SC candidates as requested by the Department. Besides, as envisaged and in conformity with the National Employment Service Manual, the employment exchange also sponsored some names of SC candidates from neighbouring employment exchanges as sufficient number of SC candidates were not available in Yanam and Mahe region of Union Territory of Pondicherry. The employment exchange, Pondicherry sponsored 118 candidates. The employment exchange of Badagara (Kerala) sponsored 4 candidates for Mahe, the employment exchange Yanam sponsored 15 candidates and employment exchange Vishakhapattnam (AP) sponsored 139 candidates for Yanam. After holding interview a final Selection List was prepared and out of 55 finally selected SC candidates, 29 candidates had produced community certificates from the Governments of Tamil Nadu, Andhra Pradesh and Kerala, based on which the revenue authority of Pondicherry had issued community certificates to them. The remaining 26 candidates produced community certificates from the revenue authority of Pondicherry. The contesting respondents in these appeals filed O.A. No. 199 of 1996 and O.A. No. 214 of 1996 before the Central Administrative Tribunal (Madras Bench) challenging the selection of aforesaid SC candidates basically on the ground that a migrant SC candidate belonging to another State is not eligible for appointment on a post which is reserved for a SC candidate for Union Territory (hereinafter for short UT) of Pondicherry and also for a direction to appoint original inhabitants of Scheduled Caste origin belonging to UT of Pondicherry. The Central Administrative Tribunal (hereinafter for short Tribunal), relying upon the decisions in Marri Chandra Shekhar Rao vs. Dean, SGS 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 vs. Union of India and another, (1994) 5 SCC 244, held that the SC persons who migrated to UT of Pondicherry after the issuance of Presidential notification, which has specified Scheduled Castes in terms of Article 341 of the Constitution cannot claim the benefit of reservation in the matter of employment in Pondicherry Government service. Accordingly, the selection and appointment of migrant SC candidates was set aside and a direction was issued to review the selection process with regard to the reserved quota after excluding the migrant SC candidates who had migrated after the issuance of the notification in the year 1964.

(3.) Feeling aggrieved by the decision of the Central Administrative Tribunal (for short the Tribunal), the Union of India and Director of Education, Government of Pondicherry, preferred Special Leave Petitions, which after grant of leave have been registered as Civil Appeal Nos. 4 and 5 of 1998. Some of the candidates whose selection has been set aside also preferred Special Leave Petitions which, after grant of leave have been registered as Civil Appeal Nos. 6 and 7 of 1998.