Jharkhand High Court
Ranjit Kumar vs The State Of Jharkhand & Ors on 9 August, 2018
Author: H. C. Mishra
Bench: H. C. Mishra, B.B. Mangalmurti
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
L.P.A. No. 282 of 2015
with
L.P.A. No. 136 of 2015
with
L.P.A. No. 139 of 2015
with
L.P.A. No. 140 of 2015
with
L.P.A. No. 204 of 2015
with
L.P.A. No. 409 of 2015
with
L.P.A. No. 609 of 2015
Ranjit Kumar ... ... Appellant (L.P.A.282 of 2015)
Chhote Lal Yadav & Ors. ... ... Appellants (L.P.A.136 of 2015)
Amresh Kumar & Ors. ... ... Appellants (L.P.A.139 of 2015)
Chandan Kumar & Ors. ... ... Appellants (L.P.A.140 of 2015)
Hare Ram Kumar Paswan ... ... Appellant (L.P.A.204 of 2015)
Arun Kumar & Ors. ... ... Appellants (L.P.A.409 of 2015)
Dashrath Paswan ... ... Appellant (L.P.A.609 of 2015)
Versus
The State of Jharkhand & Ors. ... ... Respondents [in all cases]
--------
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H. C. MISHRA
: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B.B. MANGALMURTI
------
For the Appellants : M/s Indrajit Sinha, Nitin Prasad,
& Ranjeet Kumar Singh, Advocates
For the respondent-State : Ajit Kumar, A.G.
--------
26/ 09.08.2018 When this matter was taken up on 1.5.2018, we noted that the
appellants, who were residents of the State of Bihar and they claimed the benefit of reservation in service, on the basis of the Caste Certificates, issued by the competent authorities in the State of Bihar, have been denied the benefit of reservation by the respondent authorities and their applications were not considered under the reserved category, on the ground that the certificates were not issued by the State of Jharkhand.
2. It was pointed out that this issue is no more res-integra and it has been decided by this Court in the case of Kavita Kumari Kandhaw & Ors. Vs. State of Jharkhand & Ors., reported in 2006 (2) JCR 512 (Jhr), holding that in view of the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court referred therein, the backward class of one State cannot be deemed to be so in relation to other State and the certificate, issued by one State, is not valid for other State.
3. However, one question cropped up for consideration before this Court was whether the persons, who were born prior to 15.11.2000 in the erstwhile State of Bihar, belonging to the reserved category, and enjoying the -2- Benefits, can subsequently be denied the benefits of reservation, only because of the fact that the State has been bifurcated with effect from 15.11.2000, for which, these persons are not at all responsible. It is an admitted position that the caste, to which, the applicants belong is recognized by both the States as Backward Classes. Accordingly, learned counsels for the State as well as the appellants were directed to address this Court on this point.
4. Learned counsels for the appellants has drawn our attention towards the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sudhakar Vithal Kumbhare Vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors., reported in (2004) 9 SCC 481, wherein the fact was that the tribe 'Halba' was recognized as Schedule Tribe in the District of Chhindwara, in the State of Madhya Pradesh. Subsequently, after reorganization of the State, District Chhindwara came in the State of Maharashtra, but caste 'Halba' continued to be recognized as Schedule Tribe, in the State of Maharashtra also. However, the caste certificate, issued by the State of Madhya Pradesh to the applicant in the said case was not recognized by the State of Maharashtra, and the matter went up to the Hon'ble Apex Court, where the question was formulated as follows:-
"5. -----------------. In other words, the question that is required to be posed and answered would be as to whether the members of the Schedule Tribe belonging to one region would continue to get the same benefits despite bifurcation thereof in terms of the State Reorganisation Act. ------------."
5. We find that this question was left undecided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in in the case of Sudhakar Vithal Kumbhare's case (supra). Had this question been decided by the Hon'ble Apex Court, that woud have been a guiding factor for theses appeals also.
6. Subsequently, another matter came up before this Court in Madhu Vs. State of Jharkhand & Ors., reported in (2011) 1 AIR Jhr R 450, wherein the fact was that the parents of the petitioner were the residents of the successor State of Bihar, and prior to the bifurcation of the State, the father was posted in Bokaro Steel City. Thus, the petitioner, who was born and brought up at Bokaro Steel City, claimed to be the bona fide resident of State of Jharkhand. The Schedule Caste Certificate granted to the petitioner by the State of Bihar, was not recognized in the State of Jharkhand on the same ground, and the matter came before this Court. This Court while taking a cue from the aforesaid decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Sudhakar Vithal Kumbhare's case (supra), granted the benefit of reservation of Scheduled Caste to the petitioner in that case.
-3-7. Thus, we are now having two divergent views of the Division Benches of this Court on this point. However, there is no dispute to the fact that if a person is born after 15.112000, i.e., after bifurcation of this State, the caste certificate issued in his / her favour by one State shall not be recognized in the other State. The question, however, remains unanswered whether a person born prior to 15.11.2000 in the erstwhile State of Bihar and belonging to reserved category and enjoying the benefits thereof, can subsequently be denied the benefit of reservation, only because the State was bifurcated, for which he / she was not responsible at all. The another question that shall arise that this benefit, if any, cannot be recognized to one State unilaterally, rather the benefit is to be given by both the States. It cannot be, that the benefit shall be given in the State of Jharkhand, but the same benefit shall not be recognized by the State of Bihar, and vice-versa. We are of the considered view that these questions need to be considered and decided by a Larger Bench.
8. We, accordingly, direct the learned counsels for the appellants to add the State of Bihar, through its Chief Secretary, as respondent in L.P.A. No. 136 of 2015, which shall be treated as representative representation of the State of Bihar, in all these appeals. Learned counsel for the appellants is directed to serve a copy of the Memo of Appeal upon the learned counsel, representing the State of Bihar, along with a copy of this order, who shall seek instructions from the State of Bihar and shall file its response in the form of affidavit, to be considered by the Larger bench. Let the name of learned counsel, representing the State of Bihar, also appear in the cause list henceforth.
9. We also direct the office to place these matters before the Hon'ble Chief Justice for constituting a Larger Bench at an early date, for deciding the issue. Office shall prepare the paper book for the Larger Bench.
10. Let the copies of this order be made available to the learned counsels for the appellants as well as learned Advocate General, for the needful.
( H. C. Mishra, J.) (B.B. Mangalmurti, J.) Amitesh/-