Case Note & Summary
The High Court of Judicature at Bombay, upon a reference by a Division Bench, constituted a Full Bench to resolve a conflict in decisions regarding the entitlement of migrants belonging to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes to reservation benefits in Maharashtra. Three writ petitions were clubbed for hearing. The petitioners were students who had migrated from other states to Maharashtra and had sought caste certificates to avail reservation in educational institutions. Their claims had been rejected by the Caste Scrutiny Committee on the ground that they were not entitled to such benefits in Maharashtra. The petitioners claimed to belong to Scheduled Tribes notified in their states of origin, such as the Halba/Halbi tribe. They argued that since the tribes were also notified in Maharashtra, they should be entitled to reservations. However, the respondents contended that the petitioners had not been ordinary residents of the area forming Maharashtra at the time of the Presidential Notification. The Division Bench was faced with conflicting precedents: Hitesh Dasiram Murkute had held in favor of the migrants based on Sudhakar Kumbhare, while Bankimchandra had taken a contrary view. The Division Bench, by order dated September 30, 2008, expressed its inability to agree with Murkute and referred the matter to a larger bench. The principal question of law framed was whether a person not ordinarily resident in Maharashtra on the date of the Presidential Notification is entitled to reservation benefits. The petitioners relied on Sudhakar Vithal Kumbhare v. State of Maharashtra, which held that when a region dominated by the same tribe is bifurcated between states, members continue to get benefits. The respondents, supported by the Advocate General, relied on Constitution Bench judgments in Marri Chandrashekhar Rao v. Dean, G.S. Medical College and Action Committee v. Union of India, which held that a person belonging to a Scheduled Caste or Tribe in one state cannot claim reservation benefits in another state upon migration. The Full Bench examined the scheme of Articles 341 and 342 and the Presidential Notifications, and held that the law was settled by the two Constitution Bench decisions. The court noted that in Marri Chandrashekhar Rao, the Supreme Court held that benefits are confined to the state for which the list is prepared and migration does not confer the same benefit. In Action Committee, the court reaffirmed this even when the caste or tribe bears the same nomenclature in both states. The Full Bench acknowledged the exception in Sudhakar Kumbhare for historically unified regions but clarified that the general principle requires ordinary residence in the relevant locality at the time of notification. The court examined the Bombay Reorganization Act, 1960, and the Constitution (Scheduled Tribes) Order, 1950, emphasizing that benefits are locality-specific. The Full Bench answered the reference in the negative, holding that a person not ordinarily resident in Maharashtra on the date of the Presidential Notification is not entitled to reservation benefits. Consequently, the writ petitions were dismissed.
Headnote
A) Constitutional Law - Reservation for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes - Entitlement on Migration - Constitution of India, 1950, Articles 341, 342 - The Full Bench held that a person not ordinarily resident in Maharashtra on the date of the Presidential Notification under Articles 341 and 342 is not entitled to reservation benefits in the State. The court followed the Constitution Bench decisions in Marri Chandrashekhar Rao v. Dean, G.S. Medical College and Action Committee v. Union of India, holding that the status is state-specific and benefits do not travel with migration. The decisions in Hitesh D. Murkute and Bankimchandra, to the extent they held contrary, were overruled. Held that a migrant from another state is not entitled to reservation benefits in Maharashtra unless specifically covered by the local notification and resident at the time of notification. (Paras 2, 5-12)
Issue of Consideration
Whether a person who was not ordinarily resident as on the date of the relevant Presidential Notification in the area that now constitutes the State of Maharashtra will be entitled to the benefit of reservation in the State.
Final Decision
The Full Bench held that a person who was not ordinarily resident in the area that now constitutes Maharashtra on the date of the relevant Presidential Notification is not entitled to claim reservation benefits in the State. The question framed is answered in the negative. Consequently, the writ petitions are dismissed.
Law Points
- Articles 341
- 342 of the Constitution of India
- Presidential Orders under Articles 341 and 342
- state-specific nature of Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe status
- reservation benefits not transferable across states
- ordinary residence requirement at the time of notification
- migration extinguishes reservation benefits in state of migration
