Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

10. It appears to the Court from the decision of the Apex Court in Kum. Madhuri Patil vs. State of Maharashtra (Supra) that the Apex Court itself has required the authorities to review the certificates issued in favour of persons claiming to be belonging to Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes or Other Backward Classes. But before elaborating further, the relevant constitutional provisions need to be referred to.

Article 15 which prohibits discrimination on grounds of religion, race, caste, sex or place of birth itself provides in Clause (4) thereof that nothing in Article 15 or Clause (2) of Article 29 shall prevent the State from making any special provision for the advancement of any socially and educationally backward classes of citizens or for the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes. Similarly, Article 16 providing for equality of opportunity in matters of public employment provides in Clause (4) thereof that nothing in the Article shall prevent the State from making any 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. Part XVI of the Constitution contains special provisions relating to certain castes. Articles 330 to 334 provide for reservation of seats for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes in the House of the People and in the Legislative Assemblies of the States. Article 335 provides for claims of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes to be considered for appointment to services and posts in connection with the affairs of the Union or of a State. Articles 336 and 337 contain special provisions for Anglo-Indian community. Article 338 provides for constitution of a National Commission for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes for the purposes indicated in Clause (5) of the said Articles. Articles 340, 341 and 342 read as under :-

(2) Parliament may by law include in or exclude from the list of Scheduled Tribes specified in a notification issued under clause (1) any tribe or tribal community or part of or groups within any tribe or tribal community, but save as aforesaid a notification issued under the said clause shall not be varied by any subsequent notification."

11. An analysis of the aforesaid Articles makes it clear that in case of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes it is the President who, after consultation with the Governor of a State, by public notification specifies the castes, races or tribes/tribal communities or parts of or groups within castes, races or tribes/tribal communities which shall be deemed to be Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes (as the case may be) in relation to that State and the Parliament is empowered to make any inclusion in or exclusion from such list, but save as aforesaid, a notification issued under clause (1) of Article 341 or clause (1) of Article 342 shall not be varied by any subsequent notification. Absence of such language in the provisions of Article 340 clearly highlights the contrast between the lists of Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes notified by the President (which can only be altered by the Parliament) on the one hand and the list of Other Backward Classes on the other hand. Under Article 340(1), the President merely appoints a Commission -

Such a Commission is to investigate the matters referred to them and present to the President a report setting out the facts as found by them and making such recommendations as they think proper. Thereafter, the President is to cause a copy of the report so presented together with a memorandum explaining the action taken thereon and the report is to be laid before each House of Parliament.

12. Article 340 does not provide or contemplate that the Government of the State for which a Commission for Socially and Educationally Backward Classes has been constituted cannot clarify or amplify the list of SEBC already notified by the Commission. The contrast between the language employed in Articles 341 and 342 on the one hand and the one employed in Article 340 on the other hand is too obvious to be ignored. In fact, Article 340 itself does not provide that no authority other than the Commission constituted under Article 340 can identify the SEBCs nor does it specify the authority/body which is to identify the SEBCs.

Even proceeding on the basis that Article 340 read with the observations made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in para 117 of the judgment in Indra Sawhney's case contemplate that the Commission is to identify the SEBCs within each State, there is nothing in the provisions of Article 340 or in the decision in the case of Indra Sawhney or in the State of Maharashtra vs. Milind (Supra) to take away the powers of the State Government under Article 15(4) of the Constitution to make any special provision for the advancement of any socially and educationally backward classes of citizens. Unlike Articles 341 and 342, Article 340 does not provide as to which community shall, for the purposes of this Constitution (including Article 15(4)), be deemed to be a socially and educationally backward class, nor does Article 340 provide that it is only the Parliament or State Legislature which can make inclusion in or exclusion from the list of SEBCs. Even so, in view of the observations made by the Apex Court in para 117 of the said case, while it would be legitimate for the State Government to entrust the work of identification of SEBCs to a Commission constituted under Article 340 of the Constitution, the State Government cannot decline to look into any representation from any community to the effect that the community is already covered by the list of SEBCs or that that particular community "B" is synonymous to the community "A" already included in the list of SEBCs.