Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

occurring in Article 342 of the Constitution of India should be given an effective or proper meaning so as to exclude the possibility that a tribe which has been included as a Scheduled Tribe in one State after consultation with the Governor for the purpose of the Constitution may not get the same benefit in another State whose Governor has not been consulted; but it is another thing to say that when an area is dominated by members of the same tribe belonging to the same region which has been bifurcated, the members would not continue to get the same benefit when the said tribe is recognized in both the States. In other words, the question that is required to be posed and answered would be as to whether the members of a Scheduled Tribe belonging to one region would continue to get the same benefits despite bifurcation thereof in terms of the States Reorganisation Act. With a view to find out as to whether any particular area of the country was required to be given protection is a matter which requires detailed investigation having regard to the fact that both Pandhurna in the district of Chhindwara and a part of the area of Chandrapur at one point of time belonged to the same region and under the Constitution (Scheduled Tribes) Order, 1950 as it originally stood the tribe Halba/Halbi of that region may be given the same protection. In a case of this nature the degree of disadvantages of various elements which constitute the input for specification may not be totally different and the State of Maharashtra even after reorganisation might have agreed for inclusion of the said tribe Halba/Halbi as a Scheduled tribe in the State of Maharashtra having regard to the said fact in mind."

60. It is contended by the writ petitioner that the decision of Sudhakar Vithal Kumbhare (supra) and Sau Kusum (supra) deal with the cases arising out of reorganization of the State. Writ petitioners have placed strong reliance on these decisions.

61. Sudhakar Vithal Kumbhare was a member of Scheduled Tribe known as Halba / Halbi which stood recognized both in the State of Madhya Pradesh as well as in the State of Maharashtra. He was the resident of village Sawargaon, Post. Pandhurna district Chhindwara in the State of Madhya Pradesh. As a result of State reorganization, a part of the said district Chindwara being Chandrapur which was originally in the State of Madhya Pradesh, had gone into the State of Maharashtra. It was not in dispute that he was brought up and educated in the village Pandhurna / Chindwara district and had been appointed in Maharashtra Electricity Board against the non-reserved vacancy on the post of Junior Engineer (Civil) on the basis of merit. In 1987 he was promoted to officiate as an Assistant Engineer (Civil) against a reserved vacancy on the basis of a caste certificate of Halba / Halbi caste issued by the competent authority of the State of Madhya Pradesh. However, later on, he was reverted to the post of Junior Engineer as he was held to be not entitled to the benefit of reservation for Scheduled Tribe in the State of Maharashtra. The Apex Court referred to the earlier decisions in the case of Action Committee (supra) and after acknowledging the legal position having regard to the plain expression "in relation to that State" in Article 342 of the Constitution, observed in the following terms.

"5...................... It is one thing to say that the expression "in relation to that State"

occurring in Article 342 of the Constitution of India should be given an effective or proper meaning so as to exclude the possibility that a tribe which has been included as a Scheduled Tribe in one State after consultation with the Governor for the purpose of the Constitution may not get the same benefit in another State whose Governor has not been consulted; but it is another thing to say that when an area is dominated by members of the same tribe belonging to the same region which has been bifurcated, the members would not continue to get the same benefit when the said tribe is recognized in both the States. In other words, the question that is required to be posed and answered would be as to whether the members of a Scheduled Tribe belonging to one region would continue to get the same benefits despite bifurcation thereof in terms of the States Reorganisation Act. With a view to find out as to whether any particular area of the country was required to be given protection is a matter which requires detailed investigation having regard to the fact that both Pandhurna in the district of Chhindwara and a part of the area of Chandrapur at one point of time belonged to the same region and under the Constitution (Scheduled Tribes) Order, 1950 as it originally stood the tribe Halba/Halbi of that region may be given the same protection. In a case of this nature the degree of disadvantages of various elements which constitute the input for specification may not be totally different and the State of Maharashtra even after reorganisation might have agreed for inclusion of the said tribe Halba/Halbi as a Scheduled tribe in the State of Maharashtra having regard to the said fact in mind."

(emphasis supplied)

62. It is apparent from a reading of the above observation that the Apex Court having noticed the unique feature of the case wherein both Pandhurna in the district of Chhindwara and a part of the area of Chandrapur at one point of time belonged to the same region as it originally stood, under the Constitution (Scheduled Tribes) Order, 1950, was of the opinion that the question was required to be referred before the Caste Scrutiny Committee established in the light of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Kumari Madhuri Patil (I) versus Addl. Commr., Tribal Development [(1994) 6 SCC 241]. The Apex Court observed that in a given case of this nature, the degree of disadvantages of various elements which constitute the input for specification may not be totally different and the State of Maharashtra even after reorganization might have agreed for inclusion of the said Tribe, Halba /Halbi as a Scheduled Tribe in the State of Maharashtra having regard to the said fact in mind. It therefore appears that the Apex Court, having regard to the distinctive feature of the case where P.O. Pandhurna under which village Sawargaon of appellant Sudhakar Vithal fell and a part of the area Chandrapur which at one point of time belonged to the same region (covered under the Constitution (Scheduled Tribes) Order 1950 as regards the Scheduled Tribe Halba / Halbi) and the possibility that the nature of degree of disadvantages of various element which constitute the input for specification may not be totally different in the successor State of Madhya Pradesh and Maharashtra upon reorganization, was persuaded to refer the question before the Caste Scrutiny Committee whether the appellant Sudharkar Vithal should get the same benefits despite bifurcation of the State in terms of States reorganization Act. The Apex Court however being aware of the legal position that a Scheduled Tribe notifed in one State may not be given the benefits thereof in another State within the meaning of Article 342 of the Constitution, refrained from issuing a general direction granting benefit of reserved category to the persons belonging to one of the States after bifurcation of the parent State in the other successor State despite the fact that Scheduled Tribe "Halba / Halbi‟ stood recognized by both the successor States after reorganization. Moreover, Sudhakar Vithal originally appointed as a Junior Engineer in unreserved category under Maharashtra Electricity Board, had sought promotion to the post of Assistant Engineer (Civil) claiming the benefit of reservation as a Scheduled Tribe on the basis of a certificate of „Halba / Halbi‟, a Scheduled Tribe, issued by the competent authority of the State of Madhya Pradesh. It follows therefrom that the Apex Court in the case of Sudhakar Vithal Kumbhare (supra) did not lay down a general proposition of law that upon bifurcation of the State, the residents belonging to either of the successor State would be entitled to the benefit of reservation in both the successor States, as it would have been contrary to the legal position in respect of Article 341 and 342 of the Constitution of India, as per the decision rendered by the Constitution Bench of the Apex Court in the case of Action Committee (supra).