DATE OF JUDGEMENT:
24th February 2020
JUDGES:
Justice H.C Mishra, Justice Aparesh Kumar Singh, Justice B.B Mangalmurti.
PARTIES:
Ranjit Kumar & Others (Petitioner)
State of Jharkhand (Respondent)
COUNSEL:
Advocate Indrajit Sinha, Advocate Sumit Gadodia, Advocate Deepankar, Advocate Sharad Kaushal. (For Petitioners)
AAG Manoj Tandon, Advocate Neha Bharadwaj, Advocate Navin Kumar Sinha.(For The State of Jharkhand )
Advocate Binit Chandra, Advocate S.P Chandra (For the State of Bihar)
SUBJECT
The Petitioner, in this case, had challenged the order of a writ court by filing an LPA before the Jharkhand High Court. The larger bench of this high court pronounced its judgement relating to a case of reservation in government services in Jharkhand.
AN OVERVIEW
- In the present case, the appellants were aggrieved by an order passed by Hon’ble Justice Singh on 30th January 2015. The appellants were appointed as constables in Jharkhand police under the SC/ST/OBC reservations after a division of the State of Jharkhand from the State of Bihar.
- After 3 years of service as constables in the Jharkhand police force the appellants were removed from the service on the ground that their permanent residents were in Bihar and also the caste certificates produced by them were issued by the authorities of the State of Bihar and not Jharkhand.
- It was found that they could not be provided with the benefits of reservations in the State of Jharkhand after the division of the State of Bihar as they had caste certificates granted by the authorities of their particulardistricts in the State of Bihar. Hence, due to this reason orders were passed on4th April 2008 and on 16th June 2008 terminating them from their service.
- The appellants filed a writ petition challenging their termination order in a writ court but their appeal was heard but dismissed by a judgement passed on 30th January 2015.
- The Supreme Court cases and a case of this division bench that was taken as a reference while dismissing the petition are:
- Marri Chandra Shekhar Rao v. Dean, Sheth G.S Medical College& Others (1990)
- M.C.D v. Veena & Others (2001)
- Kavita Kumari Kandhawv. The State of Jharkhand & Others. (2006)
While relying on the aforementioned cases the court held that a caste certificate issued by one state shall not be valid in another State.
IMPORTANT PROVISIONS
Constitution of India
• Article 16 – The article states that no person shall be deprived of the benefit of reservation based on the grounds of place of birth, residence with regard to appointment or employment in any office of the State.
ISSUES
The major issue framed by the Jharkhand High Court of India -
• Whether the persons born in the unified State of Bihar before 15th November 2000 belonging to the reserved category can be denied benefits of reservationin the State of Jharkhand only because the State of Bihar got divided on 15th November 2000?
ANALYSIS OF THE JUDGEMENT
1. The petitioner said that he belongs to the schedule caste (SC) and other backward class categories (OBC) and was born before the bifurcation of the State of Bihar which later was divided as Bihar and Jharkhand and so he should get a reservation under the above-mentioned categories. He further contended that he was living in Jharkhand since its formation and hence should not be refuted from the benefits of reservation.
2. Further, the counsel representing the petitioners contended that it creates a class within the class by preventing permanent residents of Bihar to derive the benefits of the reservation who have a caste certificate derived from the authorities of the district of Bihar. Hence, such things should not be approved in the eyes of law.
3. The advocates representing the government of Jharkhand argued that only permanent residents of Jharkhand should be given the privileges of reservation as per the reservation policy of the State.
4. The court observed that, if it decides in favour of the appellants, then the benefits should be applicable in favour of both the Statesi.e. Bihar and Jharkhand, as this would not be permissible that only the benefit prevails in the State of Jharkhand and not in Bihar and vice-versa.
5. The court reserved its order, in this case, in October 2019. By a majority of 2:1, the larger bench of Jharkhand High Court on 24th February 2020 held that only those people who are permanent residents ofthe State of Jharkhand are entitled to seek reservation in government services (in this case police service). However, one of the judges had a contrary view. Justice H.C Mishe observed that if the issue is related to undivided Bihar then the benefit of the reservation should be given. The other 2 judges disagreed with this view and held that such persons who are not permanent residents of Jharkhand will not be allowed to avail any sort of reservation in government services of Jharkhand and this shall apply to all irrespective of whichever category they belong to.
CONCLUSION
The decision of the high court makes it clear that only permanent residents of Jharkhand State should be given benefits of the reservation in government services of Jharkhand and not to such persons who belong to other States when the question regarding government job arises.
Click here to download the original copy of the judgement
