The State of Jharkhand issued a notification in 2016 to provide for 100 per cent reservation for local residents in district cadre Class III and Class IV posts in the 13 scheduled districts of the state. The Supreme Court repressed this notification on 2nd August 2022. It has been held by the Court that,
100% reservation provided for the local residents of the concerned Scheduled Districts or Areas only would be violative of Article 16(2) [No citizen shall, on grounds only of religion, race, caste, sex, descent, place of birth, residence or any of them, be ineligible for, or discriminated against in respect or, any employment or office under the State] of the Constitution of India and affecting rights of the other candidates or citizens of non-scheduled areas or Districts guaranteed under Part III of the Constitution of India.
The Supreme Court believes that the quality of education of the children cannot be compromised by giving 100 per cent reservation in favour of the teachers of the same districts and barring the appointment of worthy teachers. A bench of Justices M.R. Shah and B.V. Nagarathna said,
“If the candidates belonging to other areas (non-scheduled areas/districts) are given an opportunity to impart education (who may be more meritorious than the candidates belonging to the scheduled areas/districts), then it will be more beneficial to the students belonging to the scheduled areas and their quality of the education shall certainly improve. The quality of education of the school-going children cannot be compromised by giving 100 per cent reservation in favour of the teachers of the same/some districts and prohibiting the appointment to more meritorious teachers.”
In the case of Satyajit Kumar and others v. State of Jharkhand the said notification has been declared to be ultra vires to Article 35 read with Article 16(3) of the Constitution. The Supreme Court noted that as per Article 16(3) read with Article 35, local domicile reservation can be provided only through a law enacted by the Parliament and the state legislature has no power to do so. It further added that the notification is held to be void under Article 13 for violating fundamental rights.
In “Chebrolu Leela Prasad Rao and others v. State of Andhra Pradesh”, 100% reservation given for Scheduled Tribes members in teaching positions was struck down as unconstitutional by the Supreme Court of India. This judgment stated that the reservation that is permissible by protective mode, by making it 100 percent would become discriminatory and impermissible. It is further observed and held that the opportunity of public employment cannot be denied unjustly to the incumbents, and it is not the prerogative of a few. The citizens have equal rights, and the total exclusion of others by creating an opportunity for one class is not contemplated by the founding fathers of the Constitution of India. The appointments already made under the 2016 notification cannot be protected once it has been held to be void. The Supreme Court judgment came on a batch of appeals filed by Jharkhand and some individuals against the Jharkhand High Court judgment, which put aside the notification. Holding the notification unconstitutional, the High Court quashed the appointments of the trained graduate teachers made in pursuance of the advertisement in the scheduled districts relating to the local residents of those districts.
The state government had told the High Court that “the measure was taken in order to overcome the factors of low human development indices, backwardness, poverty etc., in the scheduled districts, the top court directed that instead of the new recruitment process by setting aside the appointments already made in the scheduled districts/areas, the state shall revise the merit list based on the already published cut off obtained by the last selected candidates in each subject against the respective categories with respect to the entire state and respective candidates belonging to the non-scheduled areas and scheduled areas shall be adjusted accordingly on the basis of individual merit of the candidates.”
Referring to the Constitution Bench decision, the Court observed, “The power of the Governor is pari passu with the legislative power of Parliament and the State. The Parliament or the State can exercise the legislative power subject to the provisions of Part III of the Constitution. Thereafter it is ultimately observed and held that the power of the Governor does not supersede the fundamental rights guaranteed under Part III of the Constitution.” This decision will enhance the quality of education and impart equality of opportunity in terms of employment.
Vaibhavi Inamdar is a 5th-year BLS LLB student of Anand Vishwa Gurukul College of Law,m University of Mumbai.
Disclaimer: The views, thoughts, and opinions expressed in the text belong solely to the author and not to the Jurisedge Academy.
You can access our Recent Legal News Archives and our Blogs on legal updates from around the globe.
Related
Jurisedge Academy
Share post:
The State of Jharkhand issued a notification in 2016 to provide for 100 per cent reservation for local residents in district cadre Class III and Class IV posts in the 13 scheduled districts of the state. The Supreme Court repressed this notification on 2nd August 2022. It has been held by the Court that,
The Supreme Court believes that the quality of education of the children cannot be compromised by giving 100 per cent reservation in favour of the teachers of the same districts and barring the appointment of worthy teachers. A bench of Justices M.R. Shah and B.V. Nagarathna said,
In the case of Satyajit Kumar and others v. State of Jharkhand the said notification has been declared to be ultra vires to Article 35 read with Article 16(3) of the Constitution. The Supreme Court noted that as per Article 16(3) read with Article 35, local domicile reservation can be provided only through a law enacted by the Parliament and the state legislature has no power to do so. It further added that the notification is held to be void under Article 13 for violating fundamental rights.
In “Chebrolu Leela Prasad Rao and others v. State of Andhra Pradesh”, 100% reservation given for Scheduled Tribes members in teaching positions was struck down as unconstitutional by the Supreme Court of India. This judgment stated that the reservation that is permissible by protective mode, by making it 100 percent would become discriminatory and impermissible. It is further observed and held that the opportunity of public employment cannot be denied unjustly to the incumbents, and it is not the prerogative of a few. The citizens have equal rights, and the total exclusion of others by creating an opportunity for one class is not contemplated by the founding fathers of the Constitution of India. The appointments already made under the 2016 notification cannot be protected once it has been held to be void. The Supreme Court judgment came on a batch of appeals filed by Jharkhand and some individuals against the Jharkhand High Court judgment, which put aside the notification. Holding the notification unconstitutional, the High Court quashed the appointments of the trained graduate teachers made in pursuance of the advertisement in the scheduled districts relating to the local residents of those districts.
The state government had told the High Court that “the measure was taken in order to overcome the factors of low human development indices, backwardness, poverty etc., in the scheduled districts, the top court directed that instead of the new recruitment process by setting aside the appointments already made in the scheduled districts/areas, the state shall revise the merit list based on the already published cut off obtained by the last selected candidates in each subject against the respective categories with respect to the entire state and respective candidates belonging to the non-scheduled areas and scheduled areas shall be adjusted accordingly on the basis of individual merit of the candidates.”
Referring to the Constitution Bench decision, the Court observed, “The power of the Governor is pari passu with the legislative power of Parliament and the State. The Parliament or the State can exercise the legislative power subject to the provisions of Part III of the Constitution. Thereafter it is ultimately observed and held that the power of the Governor does not supersede the fundamental rights guaranteed under Part III of the Constitution.” This decision will enhance the quality of education and impart equality of opportunity in terms of employment.
Vaibhavi Inamdar is a 5th-year BLS LLB student of Anand Vishwa Gurukul College of Law,m University of Mumbai.
Disclaimer: The views, thoughts, and opinions expressed in the text belong solely to the author and not to the Jurisedge Academy.
You can access our Recent Legal News Archives and our Blogs on legal updates from around the globe.
For daily legal updates, you may follow us on Instagram and LinkedIn and join our Telegram channel.
Share this:
Related
Analysis of AILET PG 2023
The National Law University, Delhi, finally conducted the All-India Law Entrance (AILET) for admissions to its post-graduation course. This year AILET PG exam took place on 11 December 2022 from. read more…
Share this:
Key Insights on Group of Companies Doctrine
Arbitration is a form of alternative dispute resolution to redress disputes outside the judiciary courts. It is a process in which two parties in a disagreement use an independent, impartial. read more…
Share this: