KUM SHWETA SANTALAL LAL Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A learned Division Bench of this Court by its order dated September 30, 2008, noted that it was unable to agree with the interpretation placed by another Bench of this Court in Hitesh Dasiram Murkute v. State of Maharashtra and Ors., 2007 4 BCR 784 on the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mari Chandrasshekhar Rao v. Dean, G.S. Medical College and Ors., 1990 3 SCC 130. The Bench further observed that prima facie they are also not in agreement with the interpretation placed by the Division Bench Judgment of this Court in Bankimchandra v. State of Maharashtra,2006 Supp BCR 769. The learned Chief Justice was thereafter pleased to constitute a Bench for hearing and final disposal of these matters. Considering the controversy, we had also by an order dated November 25, 2009, requested the learned Advocate General to assist the Court and also called on other Counsel, who may be directly affected, to address this Court.

(2.) The question framed for consideration reads as under:

(3.) In our opinion, the law as to whether a migrant belonging to the Scheduled Caste or Tribe is entitled to the benefits of reservation in the State of migration, considering the Constitution Bench Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mari Chandrashekhar Rao v. Dean, Seth G.S. Medical College and Ors., 1990 3 SCC 130 and the Judgment of another Constitution Bench in 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., 1994 5 SCC 244 may no longer be res-integra.