Supreme Court - Daily Orders
Puducherry S.C.People Welfare Asso. vs Chief Secr.To Govt.,U.T.Of Pondich. on 7 August, 2014
Author: R.M. Lodha
Bench: R.M. Lodha
4¸ REPORTA
BLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 10829-10830 OF 2010
PUDUCHERRY S.C. PEOPLE WELFARE ...APPELLANT(S)
ASSOCIATION
VERSUS
CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVT., ...RESPONDENT(S)
UNION TERRITORY OF PONDICHERRY
& ORS.
J U D G M E N T
R.M. LODHA, C.J.I.
The appellant is an association representing
the Scheduled Caste residents who have permanent
residence/place of abode in Puducherry. Th
e
association filed two Writ Petitions before the
High Court challenging the two Government Orders
being G.O.Ms.No.11/2005/Wel(SCW II) [for short
,
’G.O.M. 11/2005’] and G.O.Ms.No.12/2005/Wel(SCW II)
[for short, ’G.O.M. 12/2005’] both date
d
05.08.2005. G.O.M. 11/2005 relates to reservation
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
benefits in promotion and employment to Group C &
Rajesh Dham
Date: 2014.08.20
17:19:23 IST
D posts and the other G.O.M. 12/2005 relates to
Reason:
reservation benefits in professional courses.
:2:
2. The High Court was not persuaded by the
arguments of the writ petitioner and dismissed the
two Writ Petitions by a common order dated
21.07.2008.
3. The present Civil Appeals, by special leave,
arise from the above common judgment.
4. Both Government Orders take note of the
Constitution (Pondicherry) Scheduled Castes Order,
1964 and also the judgment of this Court in S.
Pushpa and others Vs. Sivachanmugavelu and others1
and then provide for extension of reservation only
to the Scheduled Castes origins of the Union
Territory.
5. Para 5 of G.O.M. 11/2005 reads as follows :-
"Having examined the demand made by various
Welfare Associations and Scheduled Castes
(origin) people of the Union Territory of
Pondicherry and taking into account the
observations made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court
at para 21 of the said judgment dated
11.02.2005, the Lieutenant Governor, Pondicherry
is pleased to order that the reservation
benefits in promotion, employment to Group ’C’
and ’D’ posts shall henceforth be extended only
to the Scheduled Caste origins of the Union
Territory as notified in the Constitution
(Pondicherry) Scheduled Castes Order, 1964 read
1 (2005) 3 SCC 1
:3:
with the Constitution (Scheduled Castes) Order
(Second Amendment) Act, 2002 (Central Act 61 of
2002)."
6. Similarly, para 5 of G.O.M. 12/2005 reads as
follows :-
"Having examined the demand made by various
Welfare Associations and Scheduled Castes
(origin) people of the Union Territory of
Pondicherry and taking into account the
observations made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court
at para 21 of the said judgment dated
11.02.2005, the Lieutenant Governor,
Pondicherry is pleased to order that the
reservation benefits in the field of education
and welfare shall henceforth be extended only
to the Scheduled Caste origins of this Union
Territory as notified in the Constitution
(Pondicherry) Scheduled Castes Order, 1964 read
with the Constitution (Scheduled Castes) Order
(Second Amendment) Act, 2002 (Central Act 61 of
2002)."
7. Leave was granted in these matters on
13.12.2010 and it was ordered that these matters
be tagged with Civil Appeal No. 4494 of 2006.
8. It so happened that subsequently by order
dated October 7, 2010, Civil Appeal No. 4494 of
20062, came to be referred to a 3-Judge Bench as
the 2-Judge Bench, inter alia, observed that in
Subhash Chandra Vs. Delhi Subordinate Service
Selection Board3, the 2-Judge Bench could not have
2 (2010) 12 SCC 794, State of Uttaranchal Vs. Sandeep Kumar Singh and
Others
3 (2009) 15 SCC 458
:4:
held that the decision rendered in S. Puspha1 case
is obiter and not binding.
9. Civil Appeal No. 4494 of 20062 has been
dismissed by us yesterday (August 6, 2014) without
answering the reference as it was not necessary in
view of paragraph 4 of the impugned judgment
therein.
10. In the present case also, it is not necessary
to answer the question raised in the reference
only in Civil Appeal No. 4494 of 2006 2 as we find
that the impugned Government Orders cannot be
sustained on the short ground, viz., they being
not in consonance with the Presidential Order,
1964.
11. The Presidential Order, 1964 reads as
follows :-
"THE CONSTITUTION (PONDICHERRY) SCHEDULED CASTES
ORDER, 1964
(C.O. 68)
In exercise of the powers conferred by clause
(1) of article 341 of the Constitution of
India, the President is pleased to make the
following Order, namely:-
1. The Order may be called the Constitution
(Pondicherry) Scheduled Castes Order, 1964.
:5:
2. The castes, races or tribes or parts of
or groups within castes, races or tribes
specified in the Schedule to this Order shall,
for the purposes of the Constitution, be deemed
to be Scheduled Castes in relation to the Union
Territory of Pondicherry so far as regards
members thereof resident in that Union
territory.
Provided that no person, who professes a
religion different from the Hindu or the Sikh
religion, shall be deemed to be a member of a
Scheduled Caste.
THE SCHEDULE
1. Adi Andhra 9. Pallan
2. Adi Dravida 10. Parayan, Sambavar
3. Chakkiliyan 11. Samban
4. Jambuvulu 12. Thoti
5. Kuravan 13. Valluvan
6. Madiga 14. Vetan
7. Mala, Mala Masti 15. Vettiyan
8. Paky"
12. It will be seen from para 2 of the above
Presidential Order that the castes, races or
tribes or parts of or groups within castes, races
or tribes (15 in all) specified in the Schedule
appended thereto are deemed to be Scheduled Castes
for the purposes of the Constitution in relation
to the Union Territory of Pondicherry so far as
regards members thereof are resident in the Union
Territory.
:6:
13. The Government Orders, however, have confined
reservation benefits to Scheduled Castes origins
of the Union Territory of Pondicherry. It would be
seen that the Presidential Order does not speak of
"origins" of the Union Territory of Pondicherry,
it only speaks of "resident".
14. Article 341 of the Constitution of India
provides as under:-
"341. Scheduled Castes.-(1) The President may
with respect to any State or Union territory,
and where it is a State, after consultation
with the Governor thereof, by public
notification, specify the castes, races or
tribes or parts of or groups within castes,
races or tribes which shall for the purposes of
this Constitution be deemed to be Scheduled
Castes in relation to that State or Union
territory, as the case may be.
(2) Parliament may by law include in or exclude
from the list of Scheduled Castes specified in
a notification issued under clause (1) any
caste, race or tribe or part of or group within
any caste, race or tribe, but save as aforesaid
a notification issued under the said clause
shall not be varied by any subsequent
notification."
15. It is important to bear in mind that it is by
virtue of the notification of President under
Article 341(1) that the Scheduled Castes come into
being. The members of the Scheduled Castes are
:7:
drawn from castes, races or tribes, they attain a
new status by virtue of Presidential Order. Clause
(2) of Article 341 empowers Parliament alone by
law to include or exclude from the list of
Scheduled Castes specified in a notification
issued under Clause (1) by the President. By no
executive power, the amendment, modification,
alteration or variance in the Presidential Order
is permissible. It is not open to the executive to
do anything directly or indirectly which may lead
to any change in the Presidential Order. Once
Presidential Order has been issued under Article
341(1) or Article 342(1), any amendment in the
Presidential Order can only be made by the
Parliament by law as provided in Article 341(2) or
Article 342(2), as the case may be, and in no
other manner. The interpretation of "resident" in
the Presidential Order as "of origin" amounts to
altering the Presidential Order.
16. Thus, we find that the impugned Government
Orders - G.O.M. 11/2005 and G.O.M. 12/2005 -
not being in conformity and consonance with the
:8:
Presidential Order, 1964 cannot be sustained in
law and have to be set aside. We order
accordingly.
17. Civil Appeals are allowed as above with no
order as to costs.
............................CJI.
(R.M. LODHA)
..............................J.
(MADAN B. LOKUR)
NEW DELHI; ...............................J.
AUGUST 7, 2014 (KURIAN JOSEPH)
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 7440 OF 2014
(arising out of S.L.P. (Civil) No. 5962 of 2010)
UNION OF INDIA TR. SEC.& ORS. ...APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
R. MURALI & ORS. ...RESPONDENT(S)
O R D E R
Leave granted.
2. In the Judgment delivered by us today in Civil
Appeal Nos. 10829-10830 of 2010, we have held that
G.O.Ms.No.12/2005/Wel(SCW II) dated 05.08.2005 is bad
in law.
3. Having regard to that, the ultimate order passed
by the High Court does not call for any interference.
4. Civil Appeal is, accordingly, dismissed with no
order as to costs.
............................CJI.
(R.M. LODHA)
..............................J.
(MADAN B. LOKUR)
NEW DELHI; .............................J.
AUGUST 7, 2014 (KURIAN JOSEPH)
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 1085 OF 2013
BIR SINGH ...APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
DELHI JAL BOARD AND ORS. ...RESPONDENT(S)
WITH
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 1086 OF 2013
SARV RURAL & URBAN WEL.SOC.TH: ...APPELLANT(S)
ITS PRESIDENT
VERSUS
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. ...RESPONDENT(S)
O R D E R
Notice was issued in these matters by order
dated 05.02.2013. It was further directed that
these matters be taken up, inter alia, with Civil
Appeal No. 4494 of 2006 bearing the title State of
Uttarachal Vs. Sandeep Kumar Singh & Ors 1, in
which a 2-Judge Bench has referred the matter to
1 (2010) 12 SCC 794
:2:
the larger Bench observing in para 13 of the
report as under :-
"13. A very important question of law as to
interpretation of Articles 16(4), 341 and 342
arises for consideration in this appeal.
Whether the Presidential Order issued under
Article 341(1) or Article 342(1) of the
Constitution has any bearing on the State’s
action in making provision for the reservation
of appointments or posts in favour of any
Backward Class of citizens which, in the
opinion of the State, is not adequately
represented in the services under the State?
The extent and nature of interplay and
interaction among Articles 16(4), 341(1) and
342(1) of the Constitution is required to be
resolved."
2. Civil Appeal No. 4494 of 20061 has not been
decided by us on merits for the reasons given by
the High Court in paragraph 4 of the impugned
order.
3. The question of law referred in Civil Appeal
No. 4494 of 2006 survives in the present Appeals.
4. Since the interpretation of Articles 16(4),
341 and 342 of the Constitution is involved, in
view of the provision contained in Article 145(3),
the matters are referred to a 5-Judge Constitution
Bench.
:3:
5. The matters may be placed before the Chief
Justice on administrative side and then proceeded
with accordingly.
............................CJI.
(R.M. LODHA)
..............................J.
(MADAN B. LOKUR)
NEW DELHI; ..............................J.
AUGUST 7, 2014 (KURIAN JOSEPH)
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 8802 OF 2012
ASHOK KUMAR CHOUDHARY & ORS. ...APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
DELHI JAL BOARD AND ORS. ...RESPONDENT(S)
O R D E R
In view of the order passed today in Civil
Appeal No. 1085 of 2013 and Civil Appeal No. 1086
of 2013, this matter is also referred to a 5-Judge
Constitution Bench.
2. The matter may be placed before the Chief
Justice on administrative side and then proceeded
with accordingly.
............................CJI.
(R.M. LODHA)
..............................J.
(MADAN B. LOKUR)
NEW DELHI; ..............................J.
AUGUST 7, 2014 (KURIAN JOSEPH)
:1:
ITEM NO.101 COURT NO. 1 SECTION XII
(P.H.)
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Civil Appeal Nos. 10829-10830 of 2010
PUDUCHERRY S.C.PEOPLE WELFARE ASSO. Appellant(s)
VERSUS
CHIEF SECR.TO GOVT.,U.T.OF PONDICH.& ORS Respondent(s)
(with appln.(s) for early hearing and office report)
WITH
S.L.P. (Civil) Nos. 9845-9847 of 2008
S.L.P. (Civil) Nos. 7934-8000 of 2009
(with appln. for intervention)
S.L.P. (Civil) No. 7854 of 2009
(with appln. for exemption from filing O.T.)
S.L.P. (Civil) Nos. 8763-8764 of 2009
(with appln. for urging additional grounds)
Contempt Petition Nos. 200-266 of 2009
in
S.L.P. (Civil) Nos. 7934-8000 of 2009
S.L.P. (Civil) No. 5962 of 2010
S.L.P. (Civil) No. 30557 of 2010
S.L.P. (Civil) Nos. 33870-33871 of 2011
S.L.P. (Civil) No. 33238 of 2011
T.P. (Civil) No. 862 of 2012
(with appln. For permission to file additional documents)
Civil Appeal No. 8802 of 2012
Civil Appeal No. 1085 of 2013
Civil Appeal No. 1086 of 2013
Date : 07/08/2014 These matters were called on for hearing
today.
:2:
CORAM :
HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MADAN B. LOKUR
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KURIAN JOSEPH
For Appellant(s)
CA 10829-10830/2010 Ms. V. Mohana ,Adv.
SLP 9845-9847/2008 Mr. Colin Gonsalves, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Divya Jyoti Jaipuriar, Adv.
Ms. Jyoti Mendiratta, Adv.
SP 7934-8000/2009 Mr. Devashish Bharuka, Adv.
Mr. Vaibhav Niti, Adv.
SLP 7854/2009 Dr. Krishan Singh Chauhan, Adv.
Mr. Ajit Kumar Ekka, Adv.
Mr. Ravi Prakash, Adv.
Mr. Chand Kiran, Adv.
Mr. Murari Lal, Adv.
SLP 8763-8764/2009 Mr. Akhilesh Kumar Pandey, Adv.
Mr. Sudhanshu Saran, Adv.
Ms. Swati Chandra, Adv.
CP 200-266/2009 Mr. M. Vijaya Bhaskar, Adv.
SLP 5962/2010 Mr. R. Venkat Ramani, Sr. Adv.
Mr. V.G. Pragasam, Adv.
Mr. S.J. Aristotle, Adv.
Mr. Prabu Ramasubramanian, Adv.
Ms. Neelam Singh, Adv.
Mr. Sameer Singh, Adv.
SLP 30557/2010 Mr. Sudhanshu S. Choudhari, Adv.
SLP 33870-33871/2011 Dr. Krishan Singh Chauhan, Adv.
Mr. Ajit Kumar Ekka, Adv.
Mr. Ravi Prakash, Adv.
Mr. Chand Kiran, Adv.
Mr. Murari Lal, Adv.
SLP 33238/2011 Mr. Bijan Kumar Ghosh, Adv.
TP 862/2012 Mr. Rajdeep Banerjee, Adv.
Ms. Joyeeta Banerjee, Adv.
Dr. Kailash Chand, Adv.
:3:
CA 8802/2012 Mr. Abhinav Mukerji, Adv.
Ms. Shreya Bhandari, Adv.
CA 1085/2013 Mr. D.N. Goburdhan, Adv.
CA 1086/2013 Mr. D.N. Goburdhan, Adv.
For Respondent(s)
Mr. R. Venkat Ramani, Sr. Adv.
Mr. V.G. Pragasam, Adv.
Mr. S.J. Aristotle, Adv.
Mr. Prabu Ramasubramanian, Adv.
Ms. Neelam Singh, Adv.
Mr. Sameer Singh, Adv.
Ms. G. Indira, Adv.
Mr. K.V. Jagdishvaran, Adv.
Mr. Vishnu Sharma, Adv.
Mr. Gopal Singh, Adv. (NOT PRESENT)
Mr. Amit Pawan, Adv.
Mr. Guru Krishna Kumar, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Sumit Kumar, Adv.
Mr. Deepayan Mandal, Adv.
Mr. Gaurav Agrawal, Adv.
Ms. Asha Gopalan Nair, Adv.
Mr. Abhishek Kumar Pandey, Adv.
Mr. B.V. Balram Das, Adv.
Mr. P. Parmeswaran, Adv.
Mr. D.S. Mahra, Adv.
Mr. Praneet Ranjan, Adv.
Mr. Pradeep Kumar, Adv.
Mr. Bankey Bihari Sharma, Adv.
Mr. Bankey Bihari Sharma, Adv.
Mr. Aruneshwar Gupta, Adv.
:4:
Mr. Naresh Kaushik, Adv.
Mr. Sanjeev K. Bhardwaj, Adv.
Ms. Lalita Kaushik, Adv.
Mr. Suresh Chandra Tripathy, Adv.
Mr. Jitinder Kumar Bharia, Adv.
Mr. A Subba Rao, Adv.
Mr. A. Venkatesh, Adv.
Mr. Annam D.N. Rao, Adv.
Ms. Neelam Jain, Adv.
Ms. Vaishali R., Adv.
Ms. Binu Tamta, Adv.
Mr. Bijan Kumar Ghosh, Adv.
Mr. S.K. Poddar, Adv.
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
O R D E R
CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 10829-10830 OF 2010 Civil Appeals are allowed in terms of the Judgment. Pending application, if any, stands disposed of. S.L.P. (Civil) NO. 5962 Of 2010 Leave granted.
Civil Appeal is dismissed in terms of the signed order. CIVIL APPEAL NO. 1085 OF 2013 and CIVIL APPEAL NO. 1086 OF 2013 In terms of the signed order, the matters are referred to a 5-Judge Constitution Bench. The matters may be placed before Hon’ble the Chief Justice on administrative side and then proceeded with accordingly. :5: S.L.P. (CIVIL) NOS. 9845-9847 OF 2008 Delay condoned.
Leave granted.
In view of the order passed today in Civil Appeal No. 1085 of 2013 and Civil Appeal No. 1086 of 2013, these matters are also referred to a 5-Judge Constitution Bench. The matters may be placed before Hon’ble the Chief Justice on administrative side and then proceeded with accordingly.
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 8802 OF 2012 In terms of the signed order, the matter is referred to a 5-Judge Constitution Bench. The matter may be placed before Hon’ble the Chief Justice on administrative side and then proceeded with accordingly. S.L.P. (Civil) NOS. 33870-33871 OF 2011 Leave granted.
In view of the order passed today in Civil Appeal No. 1085 of 2013 and Civil Appeal No. 1086 of 2013, these matters are also referred to a 5-Judge Constitution Bench. The matters may be placed before Hon’ble the Chief Justice on administrative side and then proceeded with accordingly.
:6:S.L.P. (CIVIL) NO. 7854 of 2009; S.L.P. (CIVIL) NOS. 8763-8764 OF 2009, S.L.P. (CIVIL) NOS. 7934-8000 OF 2009 AND CONTEMPT PETITION NOS. 200-266 OF 2009 IN S.L.P. (CIVIL) NOS. 7934-8000 OF 2009 This group of matters are de-tagged and are being taken up for hearing separately as learned counsel for the parties in this group of matters submitted that the issue involved in this group of matters is not connected with the referred matter.
List these matters on August 25, 2014 at 2 P.M. S.L.P. (Civil) No. 30557 of 2010; S.L.P. (Civil) No. 33238 of 2011 and T.P. (Civil) No. 862 of 2012 To retain their position.
(RAJESH DHAM) (RENU DIWAN)
COURT MASTER COURT MASTER
(reportable signed Judgment in Civil Appeal Nos. 10829-10830 of 2010 and three signed orders in respective matters are placed on the file)