Satyajit Kumar & Ors Versus The State of Jharkhand & Ors.

Satyajit Kumar & Ors Versus The State of Jharkhand & Ors.

Landmark Cases of India / सुप्रीम कोर्ट के ऐतिहासिक फैसले


REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4038 OF 2022
Satyajit Kumar & Ors. …Appellant(s)
Versus
The State of Jharkhand & Ors. …Respondent(s)
With 
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4039 OF 2022
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4040 OF 2022
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4041 OF 2022
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4042 OF 2022
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4043 OF 2022
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4044 OF 2022
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4045 OF 2022
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4046 OF 2022
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4047 OF 2022
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4048 OF 2022
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4049 OF 2022
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4050 OF 2022
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4079 OF 2022
J U D G M E N T
M.R. SHAH, J.
1.0. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned
common judgment and order dated 21.09.2020 passed
in Writ Petition No.1387 of 2017 and other allied writ
Page  1 of  107
petitions and connected applications, by which, the
High Court has allowed said writ petitions and has
observed,   held   and   declared   that   the   Notification
No.5938   and   the   Order   No.5939   dated   14.07.2016
issued by the State of Jharkhand and Advertisement
No.21   of   2016   dated   28.12.2016   modified   by   the
Advertisement   No.21   of   2016   published   on
04.12.2017,   by   the   State   Government   through
Department of Personnel, Administrative Reforms and
Rajbhasha inviting application for appointment to the
posts of Trained Graduate Teacher in the Government
Secondary   Schools   to   the   extent   of   making   100%
reservation   for   the   local   candidates   /   residents   of
Thirteen Scheduled Areas in the State of Jharkhand as
illegal,   ultra   vires   and   unconstitutional   and
consequently   has   quashed   the   appointments   of   the
Trained   Graduate   Teachers   made   pursuant   to   the
aforesaid   advertisement,   in   the   Scheduled   Districts
relating to the local residents of those Districts, the
original   respondents   –   candidates   belonging   to   the
Thirteen   Scheduled   Districts   have   preferred   present
Page  2 of  107
appeals.
2.0. Civil Appeal No.4043 of 2022 has been preferred by
the petitioners who were not party before the High
Court challenging the action of the State Government
in not appointing them. It is the case on behalf of the
petitioners   that   the   State   Government   has
misinterpreted the judgment and order passed by the
High Court passed in Writ Petition No.1387 of 2017. It
is their case that the dispute before the High Court
was with regard to the appointment of the Trained
Graduate   Teachers   and   advertisement   Notification
No.21   of   2016.   However,   so   far   as   petitioners   are
concerned,   according   to   them,   they   are   eligible
applicants of the advertisement nos.1 of 2017 and 2 of
2017   for   the   post   of   Lower   Divisional   Clerks
(Collectorate   cadre)   –   District   Level   Post   Panchayat
Secretary­ District Level Posts and Lower Divisional
Clerks­ State Level Post, State Stenographer – State
Level Post and in no manner concerned with the issue
agitated before the High Court. It is the case on behalf
Page  3 of  107
of   the   petitioners   that   they   are   awaiting   the   final
results with respect to the aforesaid posts and have
also   undergone   document   verification   procedure
carried   out   by   the   Jharkhand   Staff   Selection
Committee in the year 2019.
2.1. Civil Appeal No.4048 of 2022 has been preferred by
the State of Jharkhand challenging the order passed
by the High Court dated 4.3.2022 passed in Contempt
Case No. 109 of 2021. It is to  be noted  that  Civil
Appeal   No.4048   of   2022   is   with   respect   to   the
candidates belonging to the Non­Scheduled Districts
who earlier filed writ petitions before the High Court
and the High Court directed to issue appointments
orders   to   the   candidates   belonging   to   the   NonScheduled Districts. It is required to be noted that by
the interim order passed by the High Court further
contempt proceedings before the High Court have been
stayed.
2.2. Civil Appeal No.4050 of 2022 has been preferred by
Page  4 of  107
the candidates belonging to the Scheduled Districts
and who applied as a Trained Teacher pursuant to the
aforesaid  advertisement  and  who  are not   appointed
after interim order passed by the High Court dated
18.09.2019.
3.0. Facts leading to the present appeals in a nutshell are
as under:
3.1. Pursuant   to   the   Presidential   Notification   dated
11.04.2007 13 Districts in the State of Jharkhand had
been declared as  Scheduled   Areas.    That the said
Notification   had   been   issued   in   exercise   of   powers
conferred by the sub­paragraph (2) of paragraph 6 of
the   Fifth   Schedule   to   the   Constitution   of   India.
Pursuant to the said Notification, following Districts in
the   State   of   Jharkhand   had   been   declared   as
Scheduled Areas / Districts.
1. Ranchi District.
2. Lohardagga District.
3. Gumla District.
4. Simdega District.
5. Latehar District.
6. East­Singhbhum District.
Page  5 of  107
7. West­Singhbhum District.
8. Saraikela­ Kharsawan District.
9. Sahebganj District.
10. Dumka District.
11. Pakur District.
12. Jamtara District.
13. Palamu District­ Rabda and Bakoriya Panchayats
of Satbarwa Block.
14. Godda   District­   Sunderpahari   and   Boarijor
Blocks. 
(hereinafter referred to as the “Scheduled Areas”).
3.2. That   the   State   Government   issued   “Jharkhand
Government   (Recruitment   of   Teachers   and   NonTeaching Staff in Secondary Schools & their Service
and Condition) Rules, 2015 by means of which the
conditions / qualifications for appointment of teachers
had been prescribed, vide Notification dated 1.3.2016.
That pursuant to the order passed by the High Court
in Writ Petition (PIL) No. 4806 of 2016, vide Circular
dated   18.04.2016   the   State   Government   prescribed
definition of “Local Resident of Jharkhand”. As per the
said Circular, the Local Resident of Jharkhand would
Page  6 of  107
be deemed such Indian Citizens who would fulfill any
one condition out of the following …….
“(i).he   would   have   been   residing   within   the
geographical limits of the State of Jharkhand and
either his own name or name of his forefather would
have been lying recorded in Survey Khata. In the
cases   of   landless,   he   would   be   identified   by   the
concerning Gram Sabha which would be based on
language, culture & traditions prevailing in the State
of Jharkhand.
(ii)would have been residing within the geographical
limits of the State of Jharkhand for the   past 30
years or more due to any trade, employment and
other reasons and  would have earned immovable
property or such person has wife/husband /child
and affirm commitment to stay in Jharkhand State.
(iii)   would   have   been   appointed   &   working
officer/employee under the Government of State of
Jharkhand  / institutions  being run/recognized  by
the State Government, Corporation etc.  Or   has
wife/husband /child and affirm commitment to stay
in Jharkhand state.
(iv)Officer/employee   of   the   Government   of   India,
working in the  State of Jharkhand or have 188
wife/husband /child and affirm  commitment   to
stay in Jharkhand state.
(v)Person   appointed   at   any   constitutional   or
statutory posts in  the  State of Jharkhand  or have
wife/husband /child and affirm  commitment   to
stay in Jharkhand state.
(vi) Such person who would have born in the State of
Jharkhand and completed his whole education upto
Matriculation   or   its   equivalent   level   from   the
recognized   institutions   established   in   the   state   of
Jharkhand   &   affirm   commitment   to   stay   in
Jharkhand state.”
3.3. That thereafter, the State Government came out with
Page  7 of  107
Notification   No.   5938   and   Order   No.   5939   dated
14.7.2016   directing   that   in   Thirteen   Scheduled
Districts   of   the   State,   the   local   residents   of   the
concerned Districts (Thirteen Scheduled Districts) only
shall be eligible to be appointed on the District Cadre
Class III and Class IV posts, for a period of ten (10)
years from the date of publication of the Notification. It
appears   that   said   order   had   been   issued   by   the
Governor of Jharkhand in exercise of powers conferred
under sub­paragraph(1) of paragraph 5 of the Fifth
Schedule  of  the  Constitution  of  India.  In the   order
dated 14.07.2016 it is observed as under:
“And whereas, the scheduled Area in the State are
characterised by low Human Development Indices,
backwardness,   remoteness   poverty   and   whereas
the social indicators of the Scheduled Areas are on
an   average,   inferior   to   the   average   of   social
indicators in the State due to uneven topography,
lack of water resources, loss in canopy coverage of
forest and uncontrolled rapid industrialization;
And   whereas,   recognizing   the   factors   identified
above, the Tribal Advisory Council of Jharkhand has
recommended   issuing   of   a   notification   by   the
Governor for suspension of eligibility conditions as
enshrined   in   various   appointment   rules   for   the
appointment of class 3 and class 4 posts at district
level  for a period  of  10  years  in the  13  districts
namely­   Sahebganj,   Pakur,   (Dumka,   Jamtara,
Latehar,   Ranchi,   Khunti,   Gumla,   Lohardagga
simdega,   East   Singhbhum,   West   Singhbhum   and
Page  8 of  107
Sraikela­kharsawan for appointment of cent­percent
District level class ­3 and class­4 posts by the local
residents of the district concerned;
And Whereas, the Governor of Jharkhand in order to
improve   the   quality   of   people   in   the   Scheduled
Areas,   by   providing   additional   opportunities   of
employment,   in   favour   of   the   local   residents   of
Scheduled Areas.”
3.4. That thereafter, further order came to be published on
11.11.2016   specifically   making   it   clear   that   in
compliance of Notification No.5938 dated 14.07.2016,
local residents of concerned Districts only are deemed
eligible for appointment in the vacant post of DistrictLevel Class III and Class IV in 13 notified Districts out
of 24 Districts of the State and appointment of people
from other Districts/ other States is not permissible in
these Districts. Meaning thereby, it was made clear
that   the   candidate   belonging   to   the   Non­Scheduled
Districts cannot participate in the process of selection
in the Scheduled Districts.
3.5. That pursuant to the advertisement no. 21 of 2016
published on 28.12.2016 as modified by advertisement
dated 4.2.2017 which was issued in pursuance of the
Notification   No.5938   dated   14.07.2016,   applications
Page  9 of  107
were invited for filling up 17,784 Trained Graduate
Teachers out of which 13,398 posts (75% posts of total
advertised   posts)   were   to   be   filled   up   by   direct
recruitment and remaining 25% posts i.e., 4386 posts
were   reserved   for   primary   teachers.   The   said
advertisement   was   issued   through   Jharkhand   State
Staff Selection Commission (hereinafter referred to as
the “JSSC”). In the advertisement in para 5(iii), it was
stated   that   so   far   as   vacancies   in   the   Scheduled
Districts   and   State   are   concerned,   only   the   local
residents of those Scheduled Districts shall be entitled
to apply.  As per the para 5(i) of the advertisement, a
candidate could apply against the vacancy in only one
District of his / her choice. At this stage, it is required
to be noted that in all 8423 posts were advertised for
filling   up   the   vacancies   in   the   Thirteen   Scheduled
Districts   in   the   State,   whereas   9149   posts   were
advertised for the remaining non­scheduled districts in
the State.
3.6. Several   candidates   applied   for   the   posts   and
Page  10 of  107
undergone   the   selection   process.   The   results   were
published and process of appointments were initiated
by the State Government. Candidates belonging to the
Non­Scheduled Districts who were prevented making
application for the vacancy in the Scheduled Districts,
preferred writ petition before the High Court by way of
present  writ  petition  challenging  the    constitutional
validity  of  the   Notification  and   order  issued  by the
State Government bearing Notification No. 5938 and
Order No.5939 dated 14.07.2016, by which, only the
local residents of the concerned Scheduled Districts
were   made   eligible   for   appointment   on   the   District
Cadre Class III and Class IV posts for a period of 10
years.   The   original   writ   petitioners­   candidates
belonging   to   the   Non­Scheduled   Candidates   also
challenged   the   subsequent   Advertisement   No.21   of
2016, as modified by the Advertisement No.21 of 2016,
inviting applications for appointment to the posts of
Trained   Graduate   Teacher   in   the   Government
Secondary Schools more particularly, para 5(iii) of the
said advertisement by which, it was stated that the so
Page  11 of  107
far as vacancies in the Scheduled Districts of the State
are   concerned,   only   the  local   residents    of   those
Scheduled Districts shall be eligible to apply.
3.7. By order dated 21.2.2019 the Division Bench of the
High Court directed that the notices be published in
the   Daily   Newspaper   having   wide   circulation   about
institutions   of   writ   petitions   so   that   the   person
interested   may   intervene   in   the   writ   petitions.
Pursuant   to   such   notices,   several   interlocutory
applications / intervener applications came to be filed,
which came to be allowed by the High Court.
Taking   into   consideration   the   question   of
Constitutional importance involved in these matters,
by order dated 18.09.2019 the Division Bench of the
High Court referred the matter to be decided by the
Larger Bench. By the same order dated 18.09.2019,
the   High   Court   stayed   further   implementation   and
operation of the impugned Notification No.5938 and
Order   No.5939   dated   14.7.2016,   subject   to   the
Page  12 of  107
appointments already made, if any. 
3.8 It was the case on behalf of the original writ petitioners
– candidates belonging to the Non­Scheduled Districts
that   the   aforesaid   Notification   issued  in   exercise  of
powers conferred in para 5(i) of the Fifth Schedule of
the Constitution of India is violative of Articles 14 & 16
of   the   Constitution   of   India.   Article   13(2)   of   the
Constitution  of India was also pressed into service.
Heavy   reliance   was   placed   on   Article   16(2)   of   the
Constitution of India. It was submitted on behalf of the
original writ petitioners that in the garb of the  nonobstante  clause in para 5(i) of the Fifth Scheduled of
the Constitution, the Governor cannot infringe and /
or affect fundamental rights guaranteed under Part III
of the Constitution and that there cannot be any 100%
reservation,   so   as   to   make   only   residents   of   a
particular   area   to   be   eligible   for   appointment   to   a
public   post.   Heavy   reliance   was   placed   on   the
decisions of this Court in the case of Kailash Chand
Sharma  Vs.  State  of  Rajasthan  &  Ors. reported in
Page  13 of  107
(2002)  6  SCC  562; A.V.S  Narsimha  Rao  &  Ors  Vs.
State of Andhra Pradesh & Anr. reported in (1969) 1
SCC 839; Dr. Pradeep Jain & Ors Vs. Union of India
& Ors. reported in (1984) 3 SCC 654; Rajesh Kumar
Gupta   &   Ors.   Vs.   State   of   UP   &   Ors.  reported in
(2005) 5 SCC 172; State of Orissa & Ors. Vs. Sudhir
Kumar   Bishwal   &   Ors.  reported in  1994   Supp   (3)
SCC  245  and  Indra  Sawhney  &  Ors.  Vs.  Union  of
India & Ors. reported in 1992 Supp (3) SCC 217,  in
support   of   their   submissions   that   there   cannot   be
100%   reservation   for   the   local   residents   and   such
100%   reservation   for   the   local   residents   and   /   or
reservations on the basis of residence shall be hit by
Article   16   (3)   of   the   Constitution   of   India.   On   the
constitutional validity of the Notification making 100%
reservation for the local residents in exercise of powers
under para 5 of the Fifth Schedule of the Constitution
of   India,   heavy   reliance   was   placed   on   recent
Constitutional Bench decision of this Court in the case
of  Chebrolu   Leela  Prasad   Rao  &  Ors   Vs.  State   of
Page  14 of  107
A.P. & Ors reported in (2021) 11 SCC 401. 
4.0. On the other hand, it was the case on behalf of the
State as well as successful candidates belonging to the
Scheduled Districts that the Notification making 100%
reservation for local residents of the Scheduled Areas
was / is absolutely within the scope, ambit and powers
of   the   Governor   in   exercise   of   para   5   of   the   Fifth
Schedule to the Constitution of India.
4.1. It   was   submitted   that   for   the   upliftment   of   local
residents belonging to the Scheduled Areas / Districts
such a reservation is permissible. It was submitted
that the object and purpose of declaring Scheduled
Districts / Areas under Fifth Schedule is to uplift and
for the betterment of local residents of the Scheduled
Areas. It was also contended on behalf of the State and
successful   candidates   belonging   to   the   Scheduled
Areas/ Districts that special powers under the Fifth
Schedule are not subject to restriction under Article 16
of the Constitution of India. Heavy reliance was placed
Page  15 of  107
on the non­obstante clause. It was submitted that para
5(i) of the Fifth Schedule of the Constitution of India
begins   with   the   words   “notwithstanding   contained
anything   in   this   Constitution”.   It   was   further
submitted   that   even   the   Governor   may   by   public
notification direct that any particular Act of Parliament
shall not apply to a Scheduled Area; powers conferred
on the Governor with respect to Scheduled Areas are
special   powers   and   therefore,   such   powers   are   not
subject to any of the restrictions contained in Article
16 and / or any other provisions of the Constitution of
India.
5.0. By the impugned common judgment and order and
following the decision of the Constitutional Bench of
this Court in the case of Chebrolu Leela Prasad Rao
(supra),   the   High   Court   has   declared   the   aforesaid
Notification   and   the   aforesaid   Advertisement
unconstitutional and / or ultra vires, to the extent
making 100% reservation for the local residents of the
Scheduled   Areas.   By   the   impugned   judgment   and
Page  16 of  107
order,   the   High   Court   has   also   held   that   the
Notification and the Order are violative of Article 16(3)
and 35(a) of the Constitution of India, as such powers
are vested only in the Parliament and not with the
State Legislature. By the impugned common judgment
and order, the High Court has also quashed para 5(iii)
of   the   Advertisement   No.21   of   2016   published   on
28.12.2016 as modified by the  advertisement  dated
4.2.2017 to the extent it provided that as against the
vacant   posts   of   Trained   Graduate   Teacher   in   the
Scheduled Districts, only the local residents of those
Scheduled District can apply. In the result, the High
Court has quashed all the appointments of the Trained
Graduate   Teachers   made   pursuant   to   the   aforesaid
advertisement, in the Scheduled Districts relating to
the local residents of those Districts only. That the
High Court has further directed that all the 8423 posts
of   Trained   Graduate   Teacher   in   the   Government
Secondary Schools in the Scheduled Districts of the
State of Jharkhand, be advertised afresh and fresh
selection process be undertaken in accordance with
Page  17 of  107
law. The High Court also further clarified that all those
candidates who were eligible to apply in response to
the Advertisement No.21 of 2016, shall be entitled to
apply in the fresh selection process, irrespective of any
barrier, if any, as to their age.
The High Court has also made it abundantly clear
that   by   the   ad­interim   order   dated   18.09.2019,
selection process was never stayed by the Court in the
Non­Scheduled   Districts   and   there   was   no   stay   for
appointments   on   any   post   in   the   Non­Scheduled
Districts. According to the High Court by impugned
common judgment and order has allowed all the writ
petitions accordingly. 
5.1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned
common judgment and order passed by the High Court
of   Jharkhand   declaring   Notification   No.   5938   and
Order No.5939 dated 14.07.2016 as unconstitutional
and ultra vires to Articles 14, 16(2), 16(3) and 35(a­i) of
the Constitution of India and  consequently quashing
Page  18 of  107
para   5(iii)   of   the   Advertisement   No.   21   of   2016
published   on   28.12.2016   as   modified   by   the
Advertisement   dated   4.2.2017   to   the   extent   of
providing 100% reservation for the local residents of
the   Thirteen   Scheduled   Districts   only,   selected
candidates belonging to the Scheduled Areas – local
residents of Scheduled Areas / Districts have preferred
the present Appeals.
6.0. Dr.   Rajeev   Dhavan,   Shri   Vikas   Singh,   Shri   R.
Venkataramani,   Ms.   Vibha   Datta   Makhija,   learned
Senior   Advocates   have   appeared   on   behalf   of   the
successful   candidates   belonging   to   the   Scheduled
Areas. We have heard Shri Kapil Sibal and Shri Sunil
Kumar learned Senior Advocates appearing on behalf
of the State of Jharkhand. We have heard Shri Ranjit
Kumar   and   Shri   Gopal   Sankaranarayanan,   learned
Senior Advocates appearing on behalf of the contesting
respondents   –   original   petitioners   –   candidates
belonging to the Non­Scheduled Areas / Districts. We
have also heard Shri Ajit Kumar Sinha,  Shri  Colin
Page  19 of  107
Gonsalves and Shri Pallav Shishodia, learned Senior
Advocates appearing on behalf of the other respective
parties/ interveners.
7.0. Shri   R.   Venkataramani,   learned   Senior   Advocate
appearing   on   behalf   of   some   of   the   successful
candidates   belonging   to   the   Scheduled   Districts   /
Areas has vehemently submitted that while passing
the impugned common judgment and order the High
Court has not properly appreciated and considered the
object and purpose of declaration of the Scheduled
Areas   in   exercise   of   powers   conferred   under   Fifth
Schedule   and   the   object   and   purpose   conferring
special powers to the Governor under para 5 of the
Fifth Schedule to the Constitution of India.
7.1. It is further submitted that the High Court has also
not properly appreciated and considered the reasons
for   which   the   Notification   and   the   order   dated
14.07.2016 was issued by the Governor of State.
Page  20 of  107
7.2. It is further submitted that the Notification and the
order   dated   14.07.2016   shows   that   the   Scheduled
Districts in the State of Jharkhand are characterized
by   low   human   development   indices,   backwardness,
remoteness,   poverty   and   they   are   on   an   average
inferior to the social indicators in the State due to
uneven topography, lack of water resources, loss in
canopy   average   of   forest   and   uncontrolled   rapid
industrialization. That due to the aforesaid grounds
and the reasons, the Notification had to be issued by
the   Governor   for   protecting   the   interest   of   the
residents of the Scheduled Districts.
7.3. Taking   us   to   the   Article   29,   38   and   46   of   the
Constitution   of   India   and   reliance   being   placed   on
Article 244 of the Constitution of India which deals
with the administration of Scheduled Areas and Tribal
Areas   to   which   Fifth   Schedule   of   the   Constitution
applies,   it   is   vehemently   submitted   that   the   said
administration has to take special care of the interests
of   minorities   and   the   people   belonging   to   the
Page  21 of  107
Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and the weaker
sections of the society, and to protect them from social
injustice and all forms of exploitation. It is submitted
that therefore, Notification / order dated 14.07.2016
issued by the Governor in exercise of powers conferred
under   para   5(i)   of   the   Fifth   Scheduled   of   the
Constitution of India which was issued to protect the
interest of local residents of the Scheduled Areas and
for their upliftment, ought not to have been held to be
ultra   vires   and   /   or   unconstitutional   by   the   High
Court. It is submitted that the impugned judgment
and order passed by the High Court has the effect of
taking away special rights conferred on the Governor,
conferred under para 5 of the of the Fifth Schedule of
the Constitution of India.
7.4. It   is   further   submitted   that   Article   16(2)   of   the
Constitution of India prohibits discrimination on the
grounds “only” of religion, race, caste, sex, descent,
place   of  birth,   residence   and   these  expressions   are
preceded   by   the   word   “only”   and   followed   by   the
Page  22 of  107
expression   “or   any   of   them”   which   play   a   very
important   role.   It   is   submitted   by   Shri     R.
Venkataramani, learned Senior Advocate appearing on
behalf   of   petitioners   that   successful   candidates
belonged to the Scheduled Area, though it was the
contention on behalf of the original petitioners that
discrimination is prohibited on the ground mentioned
in Article 16(2) and 16(3) and if any protective action is
required to be taken under Articles 29, 38 and 46 of
the Constitution of India the same is taken on any or
more   of   those   grounds,   in   combination   with   other
factors and Article 16(2) of the Constitution of India
shall   not   be   attracted,   even   if   it     results   in   some
discrimination to the other set of citizens.
7.5 Shri   R.   Venkataramani,   learned   Senior   Advocate
appearing   on   behalf   of   petitioners   has   further
submitted   that   Governor   of   the   State   is   fully
competent under para 5(i) of the Fifth Schedule of the
Constitution   of   India   to   issue   notification   making
reservation in favour of the residents of the Scheduled
Page  23 of  107
Districts in order to secure justice, social, economic
and political to the residents suffering variously in the
backdrop   of   the   conditions   mentioned   in   the
Notification. It is urged that under Article 15(4) of the
Constitution of India, the State is empowered to make
special provisions for the advancement of any socially
and educationally backward classes of citizens or for
Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, as such there
is no violation of Articles 14 & 16 of the Constitution of
India.   It   is   further   submitted   by   Shri   R.
Venkataramani,   learned   Senior   Advocate   that   the
Scheduled   Area   cannot   be   equated   with   the   nonscheduled   areas.   It   is   submitted   that   taking   into
consideration various factors, it was found necessary
to   protect   the   interests   of   the   residents   of   the
Scheduled Districts.
7.6. It is submitted that it would be of immense benefit to
the school going children in the Scheduled Districts, if
they are taught in their own tribal language by the
local teachers, rather than by outsiders, who may not
Page  24 of  107
be well conversant with the local language. It is urged
that orders under challenge before the High Court as
such   did   not   suffer   from   any   denial   of   equality   of
opportunity and / or discriminatory. Further the order
under challenge before the High Court only distributes
equality of opportunity in terms of felt needs of the
Scheduled Areas of the State. Hence, there can be no
objection   to   reasonable   provisions   being   made   as
regards   Scheduled   Areas.   It   is   submitted   that   the
Constitution   permits   discrimination,   albeit   on
reasonable grounds.
7.7. It is further submitted that the scope of Article 16(3) is
confined   to   inter   State   borders   and   that   it   has   no
application to areas within a State. In this context,
reliance is placed on the decision of this Court in the
case of AVS Narasimha Rao and Ors. Vs. The State
of A.P. reported in (1970) 1 SCR 115.
7.8. It is submitted that the Governor has the power under
para 1 of the Fifth Schedule to enact any measure in
Page  25 of  107
the interests of the Scheduled Areas. No dichotomy
between the powers under paras 1 and 2 of the Fifth
Schedule   can   be   suggested.   That   they   are   only
different facets of the plenary powers of the Governor.
It   is   submitted   that   the   powers   conferred   on   the
Governor under para 5(1) and (2) of the Fifth Schedule
are plenary and exclusive powers. It is submitted that
therefore the Governor can also stay the law made by
the   Parliament   and   hence   the   said   powers   are   not
subject   to   restrictions   under   Article   16   of   the
Constitution of India. 
Shri R. Venkataramani, learned Senior Advocate
appearing   on   behalf   of   petitioners   has   further
submitted that as such the decision of this Court in
the case of Chebrolu Leela Prasad Rao (supra) is not
applicable at all to the facts of the case on hand. That
in the case of  Chebrolu   Leela   Prasad   Rao   (supra)
there was 100% preference / reservation in favour of
only of Scheduled Tribes of the respective local areas of
Andhra   Pradesh,   where   schools   are   located.   It   is
Page  26 of  107
submitted that in the instant case there is no such
reservation only in favour of the Scheduled Tribes of
the Scheduled Areas. He has pointed out the following
distinguishing features in support of his submissions
that the decision of this Court in the case of Chebrolu
Leela Prasad Rao (supra) shall not be made applicable
to the present cases.
I. All   candidates   whether   in   Scheduled   or   nonScheduled Areas can apply only in the District.
II. Only Class III and IV posts at the District Level
included. In the context of fitness of transfers of
employees, generally this Court has observed that
Class III and Class IV posts stand on a separate
footing.
III. All   candidates   within   the   districts,   whether
SC/ST/BC or OBC, General can apply.
IV. The provisions were experimental i.e., to last only
for   10   years.   (legislative   experiments   in   Socioeconomic matters will receive judicial deference.
7.9. Relying upon the decisions of this Court in the case of
Ram  Kripal   Bhagat   Vs.  State   of   Bihar  reported in
(1970)   3   SCR   233  and   in   the   case   of  Puranlal
Page  27 of  107
Lakhanpal   Vs.   President   of   India  reported in  AIR
1961   SC   1519, it is prayed that there is need for
reconsideration of the decision in the case of Chebrolu
Leela Prasad Rao (supra).
7.10.It is further submitted that in the present case, the
Notification issued by the Governor, impugned before
the High Court are not hit by Articles 14 and 16 of the
Constitution of India and as such do not fall within the
scope of the judgment of this Court in the case of
Chebrolu  Leela  Prasad  Rao   (supra). It is submitted
that   the   notifications   can   be   traced  both  to  Article
16(3) and the Fifth Schedule of the Constitution. It is
further submitted that under the Fifth Schedule the
Governor is placed at par with the parliament and the
State legislature, and the power exercisable thereunder
is plenary legislative power, and not subordinate to
any other legislative power. The power of the Governor
not to apply a parliamentary law to a Scheduled Area
would place her/ him at par with the power of the
Parliament   available   under   Article   16(3)   of   the
Page  28 of  107
Constitution.
7.11.It is further submitted that that the Governor can do
what the Parliament can do under Article 16(3) of the
Constitution, and thus enact in respect of requirement
of   residence,   as   a   measure   of   taking   care   of   the
interests of schools in scheduled areas. It is further
submitted that since Article 16(3) is an exception to
Article   16(1)   any   reasonable   provision   as   regards
residence requirement will be saved. It does not matter
that   the   law   is   made   either   by   Parliament   or   the
Governor. The power of the Governor not to apply a
parliamentary law includes the power to do what the
parliament can otherwise do.
7.12.It is  further submitted  that  it  is  open  to  treat   the
notifications not as the amending instruments of the
Rules made by the State of Jharkhand under Article
309   relating   to   appointment   of   teaching   staff.   It   is
submitted that in the case of Chebrolu Leela Prasad
Rao  (supra) answering question 2(b) raised therein it
was opined that since Rules made under Article 309
are   not   Parliamentary   or   State   law   they   cannot   be
Page  29 of  107
amended under para 5 of the Fifth Schedule.
7.13.It   is   further   submitted   that   Fifth   Schedule   is   a
Constitution   within   the   constitution,   (See
Kesavananda  Bharati  Vs.  State  of  Kerala   (1973)  4
SCC 225) which suggests that the paramount interest
of the scheduled areas and their development in ways
that would suit the areas (for instance lands, forests,
mineral wealth, etc. and the need to ensure against
exploitation) will always inform the Governor in the
exercise of powers under the Fifth Schedule.
7.14.It   is   further   submitted   that   the   rules   relating   to
appointment themselves provide that no candidate can
apply to posts in more than one district, and that the
cadres are district level and not State level cadres. The
Notification only extends the same restriction of one
district   application   to   Scheduled   Areas,   keeping   in
view the interests of all Scheduled Areas. There is no
inter   se   discrimination   amongst   eligible   candidates
residing within the Scheduled Areas. All principles of
Page  30 of  107
reservation to other categories of candidates are also
applicable.
7.15.It is submitted that this court has saved domicile as a
reasonable principle as regards access to education
and   public   employment.   The   safeguards   enacted   in
Article   371   D,   for   example,   are   one   proximate
illustration.
7.16.It is submitted that the impugned Notifications are not
discriminatory. They do not look only at the place of
residence as the factor, relevant for appointment to
schools in Scheduled Areas. They treat residence as
one   among   other   factors,   namely   the   best   way   of
promoting the interests of schools in Scheduled Areas
as a prominent or dominant aspect. In the balancing of
the interests of schools in Scheduled Areas and the
right   of   all   in   all   districts   to   be   considered   for
appointment   as   teachers,   if   the   factor   of   residence
within the scheduled district will tip in favour of the
schools' interest, then the emphasis in Article 16(2) on
Page  31 of  107
non­discrimination "'only»' on grounds of residence will
yield to Article 16(3).
7.17.It is submitted that Article 16(2) of the Constitution of
India prohibits discrimination on the grounds "only" of
religion,   race,   caste,   sex,   descent,   place   of   birth,
residence, and these expressions are preceded by the
word "only" and followed by the expression "or any of
them', which are significant. In the present case, the
cumulative factors of low human development indices,
backwardness, remoteness, poverty, inferiority in the
social   indicators   in   the   State   due   to   uneven
topography, lack of water resources, loss in canopy
average   of   forest   and   uncontrolled   rapid
industrialization have been taken into consideration.
7.18.It is further submitted that the Governor of the State is
fully competent under paragraph 5(1) of Fifth Schedule
of the Constitution of India to issue the notification
making reservation in favour of the residents of the
scheduled districts in order to secure justice­ social,
Page  32 of  107
economic   and   political,   to   the   residents   suffering
variously in the backdrop of the conditions mentioned
in the notification.
7.19.In   the   alternative,   it   is   prayed   that   even   if   the
Notification / Order impugned before the High Court
are held to be unconstitutional and / or ultra vires, in
that   case,   as   done   by   this   Court   in   the   case   of
Chebrolu Leela Prasad Rao (supra) the appointments
already made in the Scheduled Areas be saved even by
exercising power under Article 142 of the Constitution
of   India.   It   is   submitted   that   in   many   cases   those
candidates who have been appointed in the Scheduled
Areas, were either working in the non­Scheduled Areas
or for getting appointment in the Non­Scheduled Areas
they   had   left   their   jobs   as   they   were   getting
appointment in their own Districts. It is submitted that
equities are also in their favour. It is further submitted
that even appointment of the petitioners may not be
disturbed when large number of posts are still lying
vacant   in   the   State   of   Jharkhand   and   under   the
Page  33 of  107
provision   of   Right   to   Education   Act,   fundamental
rights are available to the residents of the area to have
access to education and further it is duty cast upon
the State to provide education.
7.20. It is submitted that the High Court has erred in not
protecting the appointments already made by narrowly
applying the decision in the case of  Chebrolu  Leela
Prasad Rao (supra). One of the factors for protecting
appointments made to public services in pursuance of
open competition and fair opportunity, even though
falling foul of any other legal factor, will be whether the
appointments are vitiated by the candidature’s fraud
or benefit, and whether the appointees will lose on
various counts. It is a matter of record that a large
number of appointees have left their previous jobs.
Even   in   the   case   of  Chebrolu   Leela   Prasad   Rao
(supra), persons appointed as recently as in 2020 have
been   protected.     Reliance   is   also   placed   on   the
judgement in Dr. Jaishri Laxmanrao Patil Vs. Chief
Page  34 of  107
Minister   2021   SCC   Online   SC   362  for   protection
granted by Court to the appointments already made.
8.0. Dr. Rajeev Dhavan, learned Senior Advocate appearing
on   behalf   of   some   of   the   petitioners   –   candidates
belonging   to   the   Scheduled   Districts   /   Areas   has
elaborately made submission on the use of the word
“only” under Article 15(1) and 16(2) of the Constitution
of India.
8.1. It is submitted by Dr. Rajeev Dhavan, learned Senior
Advocate appearing for the some of the petitioners that
use of the word “only” in Article 15(1) and 16(2) of the
Constitution of India would suggest that any of the
prohibited   classification   “including   caste”   cannot   be
taken as the basis of the classification unless there is
some wider constitutional or public purpose and the
classification   has   a   nexus   to   and   subserves   that
purpose. Reliance  is placed  on  the  decision  of  this
Court in the case of Kailash Chandra Sharma (supra)
(para 14) on the prohibitions in Article 16(2). That it is
Page  35 of  107
observed in the said decision that prohibitory mandate
under   Article   16(2)   is   not   attracted   if   the   alleged
discrimination   is   on   grounds   not   merely   related   to
residence but the factum of residence is only taken
into account in addition to other relevant factors.
8.2. Reliance is also placed on the decision of this Court in
the case of P. Rajendran Vs. State of Madras reported
in (1968) 2 SCR 786. It is submitted that as held by
this Court in the aforesaid decision if the reservation
in question, had been based only on caste and had not
taken   into   account   the   social   and   educational
backwardness of the caste in question, it would be
violative of Article 15(1) but it must not be forgotten
that a caste can also refer to a class of citizens and if
the   caste   as   a   whole   is   socially   and   educationally
backward, reservation can be made in favour of such a
caste on the ground that such a caste is socially and
educationally backward class within the meaning of
Article 15(4).
Page  36 of  107
8.3. Dr. Rajeev Dhavan, learned Senior Advocate has also
relied upon the decisions of this Court in the case of N.
Vasundhara Vs. State of Mysore reported in (1971) 2
SCC   22  and in the case of  Jayshree   Vs.   State   of
Kerala reported in (1976) 3 SCC 730 in support of his
submission   that   for   upliftment   of   local   residents
belonging to the Schedules Areas, the Governor can in
exercise of powers conferred under para 5 of the Fifth
Schedule stay any of the Act made by the Parliament
and / or State and the same cannot be said to be
affecting rights of the individual under Articles 16(2)
and 16(3) of the Constitution of India.
9.0. Shri Vikas Singh, learned Senior Advocate appearing
on behalf of some of the original petitioners has made
further submission in support of the prayer to mould
the   relief   to   protect   the   services   of   the   already
appointed   candidates   as   they   participated   in   a   fair
process   of   selection   in   which   no   malpractice   was
involved. It is submitted that even today, there are
more   than   4000   posts   available   in   the   Scheduled
Page  37 of  107
Districts   which   are   lying   vacant.   In   support   of   his
above prayer, it is urged that this Court, in the case of
Chebrolu   Leela   Prasad   Rao   (supra)  had saved the
appointments already made. It is submitted that this
was   because   at   least   50%   of   the   seats   had   been
reserved for Scheduled Tribes only which was struck
down by this Court. It is submitted that applying the
said observations in the present case also this Court
while   exercising   its   extraordinary   powers   conferred
under Article 142  of the  Constitution  of  India may
protect   the   appointments   made   in   the   State   of
Jharkhand   as   about   50%   appointments   of   total
advertised vacancies have been made till now. It is
submitted that if the appointments already made are
set aside pursuant to the impugned common judgment
and order passed by the High Court, in that  case,
lakhs   of   children   who   go   to   the   school   would   be
without   teachers   which   would   be   contrary   to   the
constitutional   mandate   of   Right   to   Education   as
provided under Article 21A of the Constitution of India.
Page  38 of  107
9.1. It   is   submitted   that   thousands   of   innocent
petitioners / teachers will be rendered unemployed as
against   219   contesting   respondents   /   interveners.
That the paramount public interest demands that the
appointments already made are not disturbed and the
impugned   judgment   is   made   to   apply   only
prospectively.
9.2. It is submitted that as such the original petitioners
took part in the selection process, knowing fully well
about   the   reservation   made   in   favour   of   the   local
residents   of   the   Scheduled   Districts   and   thereafter
having taken part in the selection process and having
failed in getting selected, they cannot now turn around
and   challenge   the   conditions   laid   down   in   the
advertisement.
9.3. It is further submitted that it is not true that less
meritorious  candidates  were given  appointment   and
the   rights   of   meritorious   candidates   has   been
hampered. That as a matter of fact, in all most every
Page  39 of  107
subject most of the appellants herein were much more
meritorious than that of last selected / non selected /
less   meritorious   candidates   of   Non­Scheduled
Districts.
Making above submissions, it is prayed to mould
the relief and to direct to apply the impugned common
judgment   and   order   passed   by   the   High   Court
prospectively and / or at least to save appointments
already made. 
10.0.Similar   prayer   to   mould   the   relief   and   save   the
appointments   already   made   and   to   direct   to   apply
impugned   judgment   and   order   passed   by   the   High
Court   prospectively   has   been   made   by   Shri   P.S.
Patwalia, learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf
of some of the appellants/ teachers already appointed.
In the alternative, it is prayed that only those writ
petitioners i.e., about 219 candidates may be given
opportunity to submit an option of the Districts where
Page  40 of  107
they would like to be appointed, which would be done
with reference to their merit against the vacant posts
and with respect to rest of the vacant posts, the State
may issue a fresh advertisement in accordance with
law, with the age relaxation to the candidate who had
already participated in the 2016 selection. In support
of   his   above   submission,   reliance   is   placed   on   the
decision of this Court in the case of  Hanuman  Dutt
Shukla Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh reported in (2018)
16 SCC 447. 
10.1.Shri   Patwalia,   learned   Senior   Advocate   has   also
reiterated what has been submitted on behalf of the
other  counsel  on  merits  by  assailing  the  impugned
common judgment and order passed by the High Court
and on the constitutional validity of the Notification /
Orders issued by the Governor / State Government
providing reservation for candidates belonging to the
local residents of the Scheduled Areas/ Districts.
11.0.Ms.   Vibha   Datta   Makhija,   learned   Senior   Advocate
appearing on behalf of some of the appellants herein –
candidates   already   appointed   has   made   following
submissions in support of her prayer to mould the
Page  41 of  107
relief in favour of already appointed candidates.
I. That   the   appointments   were   made   before   the
decision of this Court in the case of  Chebrolu
Leela  Prasad  Rao   (supra). Thus, at the time of
appointment of the petitioners herein, law in the
State of Jharkhand was not clear and was in a
state of flux;
II. Even this Court has vide final order in the case of
Chebrolu   Leela   Prasad   Rao   (supra)  has saved
the appointments;
III. That all the appointed candidates­ petitioners are
appointed by a fair process of selection and they
are all meritorious candidates;
IV. The Schools would be without teachers in case
the petitioners are ousted from service. In SLP
(C)No.12490 of 2020 about 1108 schools would
be having no teachers and therefore, it may affect
the education of the pupils. That the residents of
the   Scheduled   Areas   are   also   having   right   to
education   which   is   a   fundamental   right   as
provided   under   the   Constitution   of   India.
Therefore,   if   the   petitioners   and   other   already
appointed teachers are removed, in that case, the
Page  42 of  107
schools would be without teachers and therefore,
it may affect / hamper the education in the State
of Jharkhand.
11.1.Ms. Makhija, learned Senior Advocate has also relied
upon   the   decisions   of   this   Court   in   the   case   of
Chebrolu  Leela  Prasad  Rao   (supra),  Kailash  Chand
Sharma Vs. State of Rajasthan reported in (2002) 6
SCC 562, K Madhav Reddy Vs. State of A.P reported
in  (2014)  6  SCC  537,  R.K.  Sabharwal  Vs.  State  of
Punjab reported in (1995)  2 SCC 745  and  Baburam
Vs.   CC   Jacob  reported   in  (1999)   3   SCC   362,   in
support of her prayer to direct to apply the impugned
judgment and order passed by the High Court only
prospectively.
12. While   assailing   the   impugned   judgment   and   order
passed by the High Court Shri Kapil Sibal, learned
Senior Advocate and Shri Sunil Kumar, learned Senior
Advocate   appearing   on   behalf   of   the   State   of
Jharkhand   have   vehemently   submitted   that   in   the
Page  43 of  107
present case and in the facts and   circumstances of
the case, High Court has committed a grave error in
declaring   the   Notification   /   Order   issued   by   the
Governor / State Government and the advertisement
providing   reservation   for   the   local   residents   of
Scheduled  Area  /   Districts  as   unconstitutional   and
ultra vires Articles 14, 16 and 35 of the Constitution of
India.
12.1.It is submitted on behalf of the State that there is a
basic   fallacy   in   the   contention   of   the   original
petitioners that the impugned Notification makes the
District as the basis of classification. It is submitted
that   as   such   a   classification   is   made   by   the
Constitution itself and the basis is “Scheduled Area” as
contemplated under Article 244 r/w Fifth Schedule of
the Constitution of India. That the Scheduled Areas
are   such  of   those   areas   comprised  of  mostly  tribal
population within the different States constituting the
Union of India which the Constitution of India treats
as special in the matter of its governance. That the
Page  44 of  107
President may, by an order declare any such area as
Scheduled Area under para 6 of Fifth Schedule of the
Constitution of India. Under sub­para 2 of para 5 of
Fifth Schedule, the President may direct that the whole
or any specified part of a Scheduled Area shall cease to
be a Scheduled Area or a part of such an area, or even
increase the area of a Scheduled Area in the State.
Thus the President may declare an entire District as a
Scheduled Area or a part of the District as a Scheduled
Area or even the combination of two Districts as a
Scheduled Area.   It is submitted that in the instant
case   on   a   consideration   of   the   demography   of   the
different   Districts   in   the   State   of   Jharkhand,   the
President of India formed an opinion to declare the
areas comprised in 13 Districts as a Scheduled Area
and made the Scheduled Areas (State of Jharkhand)
Order, 2007. That as time passes the President may
declare that a portion of any of the 13 Districts may
cease to be a Scheduled Area or even increase the area
of any of the declared Scheduled Areas by combining
portions   of   two   Districts.   Therefore   the   impugned
Page  45 of  107
Notification and order makes the District as the basis
of classification. It is submitted that as such there is
no   challenge   to   the   Scheduled   Area   (State   of
Jharkhand) Order, 2007 in these cases.
12.2.So far as the contention on behalf of the original writ
petitioners   that   impugned   Notification   and   Order
purport to modify Rules framed under the  proviso to
Article 309 which are neither an Act of Parliament nor
an Act of State Legislature, it is submitted that as
such impugned Notification carves out an exception by
stating “Notwithstanding anything contained in these
rules or any other Act, Order, Direction, Rules or Law
for the time being in force” and hence would include
an Act of Parliament like the “Right of Children to  Free
and   Compulsory   Education   Act,   2009”     which   was
enacted pursuant to Article 21­A of the Constitution of
India and is applicable to Elementary Schools. It is
submitted that Section 23 of the said 2009 Act makes
provision for eligibility for appointment of teachers in
Elementary Schools. Hence the impugned Notification
Page  46 of  107
would have to be read as carving out an exception /
modification to an Act of the Parliament i.e., Section
23 of the said 2009 Act and same cannot be faulted
with.
12.3.It is submitted that the impugned Notification and the
Rules appended thereto which are being excepted /
modified, are both expressed to have been made by
“The Order of the Governor” and authenticated in the
manner   prescribed   under   Article   166(2)   of   the
Constitution of India. That the source of power to issue
the impugned Notification can be traced to para 5(1) of
Schedule   V   as   also   proviso   to   Article   309   of   the
Constitution of India. It is submitted that the omission
to mention “read with proviso to Article 309 of the
Constitution” after ‘in exercise of powers conferred by
the provision of sub­para (1) of para 5 of the Fifth
Schedule ...” in the impugned Notification shall not
affect / invalidate the amendment to the Rules framed
under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of
India. That in the case of Union of India and Anr. Vs.
Page  47 of  107
Tulsiram  Patel  reported in  (1985)  3  SCC  398  (para
126) it is observed that the source of power exists by
reading together two provisions, whether statutory or
constitutional and the order refers to only one of them
but   the   validity   of   the   order   should   be   upheld   by
construing   it   as   an   order   passed   under   both   the
provisions.
12.4 Now so far as submission on behalf of the original writ
petitioners whether the impugned Notification / Order
are violative of Article 16 of the Constitution of India is
concerned,   it   is   vehemently   submitted   that   the
impugned Notification and Order are not “only” on the
ground   of   residence.   It   is   submitted   that   social
indicators   in   the   scheduled   areas   being   lesser   as
compared to the other areas of the State as also the
other factors mentioned in the impugned Notification /
Order which indicate that those residing therein are
not   equally   circumstanced   as   those   residing   in   the
Non­   Scheduled   Areas,   there   is   no   equality   of
opportunity. Hence, a duty is cast upon the State to
minimize  the inequalities in income and endevour to
Page  48 of  107
eliminate   inequalities   in   status,   facilities   and
opportunities, not only amongst individuals but also
amongst group of people residing in different areas or
engaged in different vocations.  It is submitted that the
Directive Principle of State policy contained in Articles
38, 39, 39­A, 43 and 46 part IV of the Constitution of
India would apply in this case. It is submitted that the
impugned order No.5939 dated 14.07.2016 was issued
after noticing  the Report of Tribal Advisory Council
and   various   factors   of   inequality   between   the
Scheduled Areas and Non­Scheduled Area, it is stated
therein that, inter alia, that additional opportunities of
employment had to be provided to those residing in
Scheduled Areas. That in the case of  Kailash Chand
Sharma   (supra)  (para   48)   it   is   observed   that
“equalising unequals by taking note of their handicaps
and   limitation   is   not   impermissible   under   the
Constitution provided that it seeks to achieve the goals
of promoting overall equality”. It is urged that in the
present   case   it   was   expected   that   overall   equality
would be achieved by expression / modification of the
Page  49 of  107
Rules made by impugned Notification and Order for a
period of ten years. Therefore, as such, the impugned
Notification and order cannot be said to be violative
Article 16 of the Constitution of India.
12.5.Now so far as submission on behalf of the original writ
petitioners that the impugned Notification is violative
of Article 14 of the Constitution of India is concerned,
it is vehemently submitted by learned Senior Advocate
on behalf of the State that such argument based on
infringement of Article 14 is fallacious. It is contended
that while Article 14 guarantees that the State shall
not deny to any person equality before law or the equal
protection of laws, para 5(1) of Fifth Schedule starts
with   a  non   obstante  clause   which   empowers   the
Governor to direct that any Central Law or State Law
shall not apply to a Scheduled Area or part thereof or
may apply with such exceptions or modifications as he
may direct. It is submitted that if the submission on
behalf of the original petitioners that the impugned
notification   /   order   is   in   violation   of   Article   14   is
Page  50 of  107
accepted, in that case, it would lead to an apparent
conflict   between   two   constitutional   provisions,   viz.
Article   14   and   para   5(1)   of   Fifth   Schedule.   It   is
submitted that this conflict can only be resolved by
following   the   well   settled   principle   of   harmonious
construction that the special law shall prevail over the
general.   Reliance   is   placed   on   the   decision   of   this
Court in the case of J K Spinning and Weaving Mills
Co.  Ltd   Vs.  State   of  UP  reported in  AIR  1961  SC
1170 (para 9). It is submitted that said provision for
the   Governance   and   development   of   the   Scheduled
Areas and the Tribals residing therein would never be
subject to the general provisions of the fundamental
rights guaranteed under Article 16.
12.6 In the alternative, it is prayed by the learned Senior
Advocate   appearing   on   behalf   of   the   State   not   to
disturb the appointments already made earlier and to
apply   the   impugned   common   judgment   and   order
passed by the High Court prospectively so that it may
not affect the education of the local residents of the
Page  51 of  107
Scheduled Areas. It is submitted that if the impugned
judgment   and   order   passed   by   the   High   Court   is
implemented and the appointments already made are
also set aside as observed and held by the High Court,
in that case, the teachers will have to be relieved and
many   schools   in   the   Scheduled   Areas   would   be
without   teachers   and   it   may   ultimately   hamper
education   in   the   State   and   which   may   violate   the
fundamental rights which would be available to the
local   residents   of   the   Scheduled   Area   guaranteed
under Article 21 A of the Constitution of India.
13. Present Appeals are vehemently opposed by Shri Ranjit
Kumar   and   Shri   Gopal   Sankaranarayanan,   learned
Senior Advocates appearing on behalf of the contesting
respondents   –   original   petitioners   –   candidates
belonging to the Non­Scheduled Areas / Districts.
13.1.Shri Ranjit Kumar, learned Senior Advocate  appearing
on behalf of the original writ petitioners appearing in
Civil Appeal No.4044 of 2022 on behalf of Soni Kumari
Page  52 of  107
has submitted that the original writ petitioners (W.P
No.1387 of 2017 before the High Court) approached
the   High   Court   challenging   the   State   Government
Notification   No.5938     and   Order   No.5939   dated
14.07.2016 whereby in Thirteen Scheduled Districts in
Jharkhand   (out   of   total   24   Districts)   only   local
residents of Thirteen Scheduled Districts were made
eligible for appointment to Class III and IV posts for a
period   of   10   years   as   well   as   advertisement   dated
28.12.2016 as modified on 4.12.2017 and clause V (iii)
which   restricted   only   local   residents   /   domicile   of
notified / Scheduled Districts alone being entitled to
submit   application   against   vacancies   earmarked   for
the said Districts.   It is submitted that due to the
impugned  Notification / order and the advertisement
she was constrained to submit the application Form
for District Palamu – a Non­Scheduled District, though
after   her   marriage   she   is   residing   at   Ranchi,   a
Scheduled   District.   It   is   submitted   that   she   had
secured more marks than the cut off marks obtained
by   the   last   selected   candidate   in   her   category   and
Page  53 of  107
subject in the Scheduled Districts  and yet she was not
selected.   It   is   submitted   that   in   this   factual
background the challenge to the impugned notification
/   order   and   the   advancement   are   required   to   be
appreciated.
13.2.It is submitted by Shri Ranjit Kumar, learned Senior
Advocate that the issues which arises for consideration
in the instant case are:
I. Whether the exercise of Governor's power under
Paragraph 5 of the Fifth Schedule is a "plenary
power" or an "enabling power" which must meet
the test of basic feature/foundational principles
and fundamental rights guaranteed under Part III
of the Constitution?
II. Whether the Governor is vested with the power to
determine   eligibility   based   on   residence
(specifying   100%   reservation   for   domiciles   in
Schedule Districts) under Paragraph 5(1) of the
Fifth Schedule?
III. Whether GOs No. 5938 & 5939 dated 14.07.2016
whereby   in   the   13   Scheduled   Districts   in
Jharkhand,   Only   local   residents   of   the   said
districts were declared eligible for appointment to
Page  54 of  107
Class Ill and IV posts for a period of 10 years are
ultra vires Articles 14, 16(2)&(3) and 35 (a­i) of
the Constitution?
13.3.In support of the submissions on behalf of the original
petitioners   –   candidates   belonging   to   the   NonScheduled   Areas   that   the   impugned   Notification   /
Order   and   the   advertisement   restricting   the   local
residents of the Scheduled Area only to apply for the
post in the Scheduled Area are ultra vires to Articles
14 & 16 of the Constitution of India and it affects
candidates   belonging   to   the   non­Scheduled   Area
guaranteed under Part III of the Constitution of India,
following submissions are made: 
I. The power vested with the Governor under Article
244(1)   read   with   the   Fifth   Schedule   of   the
Constitution  is not  a  plenary power but is an
enabling   power   to   meet   the   object   specified
therein   i.e.,   "Administration   of   the   Scheduled
Areas". Paragraph 5(1) of the Fifth Schedule is
one facet of this enabling power vested with the
Governor.   In   terms   of   this   paragraph,   he   may
determine which Parliament or State legislation
Page  55 of  107
shall  apply to the  Scheduled  Area, specify the
exceptions/modifications   to   the   legislations   so
specified   and   also   determine   retrospective
applicability of such legislation;
II. The power of the Governor under Para 5(1) of
Fifth  Schedule does  not  extend  to  subordinate
legislation; it is with respect to an Act enacted in
the   sovereign   function   by   the   Parliament   or
legislature of the State which can only be dealt
with;
III. The Non obstante clause in Paragraph 5 of Fifth
Schedule cannot be construed as taking away the
provision outside the limitations on the amending
power   and   has   to   be   harmoniously   construed
consistent with the foundational principles and
the basic features of the Constitution;
IV. The Governor's power under Para 5(1) of the Fifth
Schedule to the Constitution is subject to some
restrictions, which have to be observed by the
Parliament or the legislature of the State while
making   law   and   shall   not   affect   fundamental
rights   guaranteed   under   Part   III   of   the
Constitution;
In support of above submissions, heavy reliance
Page  56 of  107
is placed on the decision of this Court in the case of
Chebrolu  Leela  Prasad  Rao   (supra)  (Paras 102­104,
154(1)(c)). 
13.4.It is further submitted by Shri Ranjit Kumar, learned
Senior Advocate that residence local by itself cannot be
a   ground   to   accord   any   preferential   treatment   for
reservation   in   public   employment   by   the   State
Government since the same stands specifically barred
by Article 16(1) and (2) of the Constitution. Reliance is
placed on the decision of this Court in the case of
State of Orissa & Ors Vs. Sudhir Kumar Bishwal &
Ors reported in 1994 Supp (3) SCC 245 para 6 and 8.
13.5.It is further submitted that the Governor lacks subject
matter jurisdiction to prescribe any requirement as to
residence within the State in light of Article 16(3) r/w
Article 35 (a­i) of the Constitution which mandate that
power   to   create   residential   qualification   for
employment is exclusively conferred on Parliament and
not   the   State   Legislature   which,   by   necessary
corollary, shall exclude the State Executive (Governor)
Page  57 of  107
whose power is co­terminus with the State Legislature.
It is submitted that the Parliament alone is empowered
to make the law prescribing residential requirement
within a State or Union Territory, as the case may be,
in relation to a class or classes of employment. It is
submitted   that   therefore,   in   the   absence   of
parliamentary   law,   even   the   prescription   of
requirement   as   to   residence   within   the   State   is
impossible. In support of above submission, reliance is
placed on the decision of this Court in the case of AVS
Narasimha Rao & Ors. Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh
& Anr. reported in (1969) 1 SCC 839,  Kailash Chand
Sharma  Vs.  State  of  Rajasthan  &  Ors.  reported in
(2002)  6  SCC  562  (para 13­14) and  Rajesh  Kumar
Gupta   &   Ors.   Vs.   State   of   UP   &   Ors.  reported in
(2005) 5 SCC 172 (para 16 &b 17).
13.6.It is further submitted that even otherwise impugned
orders   /   notification   as   sought   to   introduce   100%
reservation in the Thirteen Scheduled District in the
Page  58 of  107
State  of  Jharkhand  whereby only  local  residents of
said Districts were declared eligible for appointment to
Class III and IV posts for the period of 10 years, are
contrary to the law laid down by this Court in the case
of Indra Sawhney (supra) (para 788) as well as recent
decision of the Constitutional Bench of this Court in
the case of Chebrolu Leela Prasad Rao (supra)  (para
104) wherein it has been held that the outer limit of
the reservations contemplated in Clause (4) of Article
16 of the Constitution of India should not normally
exceed the limit of 50%.
13.7.Now so far as justification by the State in invoking
“sons   of   the   soil”   policy   prescribing   reservation   or
preference based on domicile or residence as already
been decried by this Court in the case of Dr. Pradeep
Jain Vs. UOI reported in (1984) 3 SCC 654 (para 5), it
is submitted that in the said decision it is observed
and held that the Parliament alone has been given the
right   to   enact   an   exception   to   the   ban   on
discrimination   based   on   residence.   The   impugned
Page  59 of  107
Government   Notifications   No.   5938   &   5939   dated
14.07.2016 are ex facie violative of Article 14 of the
Constitution in as much as the same is not based on
any   intelligible   differentia   and   does   not   have   any
rational nexus with the object and purpose it has set
out to achieve i.e., selection of the most competent
teachers to impart quality education in secondary and
high   schools   run   by   State   Government   and
improvement of educational standard of the residents
within the State. It is submitted that many districts
notified as Scheduled Districts like East Singhbhum
(Jamshedpur) and Ranchi are at the top half of the
Human   Development   Index   (HDI)   in   Jharkhand
whereas   the   Petitioner's   District   Palamau   has   the
lowest HDI in the State, yet has been classified as a
Non­Scheduled District which smacks of arbitrariness
adopted by the State in determination of Schedule and
Non­ Scheduled Districts.
13.8.It is further submitted that even the contention raised
by   the   State   Government   and   some   of   the   learned
Page  60 of  107
counsel   appearing   on   behalf   of   the   candidates
belonging to the Scheduled Areas that the impugned
Notification / Order were premised on the basis that
candidates who knew the local tribal language spoken
in the concerned district would be in a better position
to teach the students, is absolutely fallacious. It is
submitted that as such said contention has not been
approved and / or accepted by this Court in the case
of  Chebrolu   Leela   Prasad   Rao   (supra).   That   even
otherwise TGT Recruitment Process is conducted for
selection   of   Trained   Graduate   Teachers   to   teach
various subjects in Secondary Schools.  It is submitted
that   thus   excepting   for   the   local   tribal   language
subject,   all   other   subjects   (viz.   English,   Hindi,
Mathematics,   Science,   Social   Studies)   which   are
general   in   nature   must   be   taught   by   the   most
meritorious teachers so as to bring about an all­round
development   of   the   students   as   opposed   to   a
substandard teacher whose contribution is negligible
in academics.
Page  61 of  107
It is submitted that Hindi is the official language
in   Jharkhand   and   is   also   the   common   medium   of
interaction   among   the   various   regions   in   the   State
since over 21 languages are spoken in the State. That
therefore, it stands to no reason that persons who do
not know all 21 regional languages spoken in the State
would be unable to impart education to the students
in those regions. It is submitted that any person who
is well versed in Hindi (Devnagari script) is more than
competent   to   effectively   impart   education   to   the
students   in   all   districts   in   the   State   without   any
hindrance.
13.9.It is further submitted by Shri Ranjit Kumar, learned
Senior   Advocate   that   once   impugned   Notification   /
Order are held to be unconstitutional and ultra vires to
Articles 14, 16 and 35 of the Constitution of India, in
that   case,   any   appointment   made   violating   the
fundamental rights of the original writ petitioners and
appointment made pursuant to such unconstitutional
provisions,   the   same   have   to   be   set   aside.   It   is
Page  62 of  107
submitted   that   therefore,   the   High   Court   has   not
committed any error in quashing the appointment of
the original writ petitioner. In support of his above
submission, following recent decisions are relied upon:
I. Anupal Singh Vs. State of UP reported in (2020)
2 SCC 173.
II. State of UP and Ors. Vs. Anand Kumar Yadav
and Ors. reported in (2018) 13 SCC 560.
III. Renu Vs. District & Sessions Judge reported in
(2014) 15 SCC 731.
IV. State of MP Vs. Dharam Bir reported in (1998)
6 SCC 165.
V. Syed Khalid Rizvi and Ors. Vs. Union of India
and Ors. reported in 1993 Supp. (3) SCC 575.
VI. Surajprakash Gupta and Ors. Vs. State of J &
K and Ors. reported in (2000) 7 SCC 561.
VII. R.S. Garg Vs. State of UP and Ors. reported in
(2006) 6 SCC 430.
VIII. Secretary,   State   of   Karnataka   and   Ors.   Vs.
Umadevi (3) and Ors. reported in (2006) 4 SCC
1.
13.10   It is further submitted by Shri Ranjit Kumar,
Page  63 of  107
learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the
respective   original   writ   petitioners   –   candidates
belonging   to   the   Non­Scheduled   Districts   has   also
requested to mould the relief under Article 142 of the
Constitution of India by directing to prepare a revised
merit   list   based   on   the   already   published   cut   off
obtained by the last selected candidate in each TGT
subject against respective categories. It is submitted
that   this   would   entail   that   no   fresh   or  de   novo
recruitment   process   is   initiated   qua   the   advertised
posts   on   the   one   hand,   while   on   the   other   hand
candidates from the present pool itself including the
original writ petition – Soni Kumar and 218 similarly
situated   candidates   as   well   as   even   the   present
selected   candidates   will   get   an   opportunity   to   be
considered for appointment as TGT teachers. Reliance
is placed on the decision of this Court in the case of
Rajesh Kumar Vs. State of Bihar reported in (2013)
4  SCC   690  and  Ran   Vijay   Singh   Vs.   State   of   UP
reported   in  (2018)   2   SCC   357,   in   support   of   his
Page  64 of  107
request and prayer to mould the relief as prayed for.
14. Shri   Gopal   Sankaranarayanan,   the   learned   Senior
Advocate   has   also   made   elaborate   submissions   in
support of the impugned common judgment and order.
15. In the State of Jharkhand 13 Districts were declared
as Scheduled Districts / Areas in exercise of powers
conferred by sub­paragraph (2) of Paragraph 6 of the
Fifth Schedule to the Constitution of India. That the
State Government has framed the Recruitment Rules,
2015   prescribing   conditions   /   qualifications   for
appointment   of   teachers.   The   said   Rules   are   in
exercise   of   powers   under   Article   309   of   the
Constitution   of   India.   That   vide   Circular   dated
18.04.2016 and pursuant to the order passed by the
High   Court,   the   State   Government   has  prescribed
definition of “Local Resident of Jharkhand”. As per the
said circular, Local Resident of Jharkhand would be
deemed to be Indian Citizens who are fulfilling any one
condition out of the following criteria: ­ 
Page  65 of  107
“(i).he   would   have   been   residing   within   the
geographical limits of the State of Jharkhand and
either his own name or name of his forefather would
have been lying recorded in Survey Khata. In the
cases   of   landless,   he   would   be   identified   by   the
concerning Gram Sabha which would be based on
language, culture & traditions prevailing in the State
of Jharkhand.
(ii)would have been residing within the geographical
limits of the State of Jharkhand for the   past 30
years or more due to any trade, employment and
other reasons and  would have earned immovable
property or such person has wife/husband /child
and affirm commitment to stay in Jharkhand State.
(iii)   would   have   been   appointed   &   working
officer/employee under the Government of State of
Jharkhand  / institutions  being run/recognized  by
the State Government, Corporation etc.  Or   has
wife/husband /child and affirm commitment to stay
in Jharkhand state.
(iv)Officer/employee   of   the   Government   of   India,
working in the  State of Jharkhand or have 188
wife/husband /child and affirm  commitment   to
stay in Jharkhand state.
(v)Person   appointed   at   any   constitutional   or
statutory posts in  the  State of Jharkhand  or have
wife/husband /child and affirm  commitment   to
stay in Jharkhand state.
(vi) Such person who would have born in the State
of Jharkhand  and  completed his whole education
upto Matriculation or its equivalent level from the
recognized   institutions   established   in   the   state   of
Jharkhand   &   affirm   commitment   to   stay   in
Jharkhand state.”
16. That   thereafter,   Governor   of   Jharkhand   /   State
Government   in   exercise  of   powers  under  Paragraph
2(1) of the Fifth Schedule to the Constitution of India
Page  66 of  107
has issued the order / Notification dated 14.07.2016,
inter   alia,   providing   that   notwithstanding   anything
contained in any Appointment / Recruitment Rules or
any other Act, Order, Direction, Rules or Law for the
time   being   in   force   only   local   residents   of   the
Scheduled   Areas   /   Districts   in   the   State   shall   be
eligible for recruitment to the vacancy arising in Class
III   and   IV   posts   of   the   District   Cadre   in   various
departments of the concerned Districts, for a period of
10 years from the date of issue of the said Notification.
The Order and Notification, validity of which have been
questioned, are extracted hereinunder:
“Government of Jharkhand
Deptt. of Personnel, Administrative Reforms &
Rajbhasha
Order
Ranchi, Dated 14.07.2016
No.  5939  /  Whereas,  under  sub­paragraph   (1)   of
paragraph 5 of the Fifth Schedule to the Constitution
of India, the Governor may, by public notification
direct that any particular Act of Parliament or of the
Legislature of the State shall not apply to a Schedule
Area or any part thereof in the State subject to such
exceptions   and   modifications   as   specified   in   the
notification.
Page  67 of  107
And whereas, the Scheduled Area in the State are
characterized by low Human Development Indices,
backwardness,   W.P.(C)   No.   1387   of   2017   and
analogous matters remoteness poverty and whereas
the social indicators of the Scheduled Areas are on
an   average,   inferior   to   the   average   of   social
indicators in the State due to uneven topography,
lack of water resources, loss in canopy coverage of
forest and uncontrolled rapid industrialization;
And   whereas,   recognizing   the   factors   identified
above, the Tribal Advisory Council of Jharkhand has
recommended   issuing   of   a   notification   by   the
Governor for suspension of eligibility conditions as
enshrined   in   various   appointment   rules   for   the
appointment of class 3 and class 4 posts at district
level  for a period  of  10  years  in the  13  districts
namely­   Sahebganj,   Pakur,   Dumka,   Jamtara,
Latehar,   Ranchi,   Khunti,   Gumla,   Lohardagga,
Simdega,   East   Singhbhum,   West   Singhbhum   and
Sraikela­Kharsawan for appointment of cent­percent
District level class­3 and class­4 posts by the local
residents of the district concerned;
And whereas, the Governor of Jharkhand in order to
improve   the   quality   of   people   in   the   Scheduled
Areas,   by   providing   additional   opportunities   of
employment,   in   favour   of   the   local   residents   of
Scheduled Areas;
The following notification shall come into effect from
the date of its publications in the official Gazette.”
“Government of Jharkhand
Deptt. of Personnel, Administrative Reforms &
Rajbhasha
Notification
Ranchi, Dated 14.07.2016
No.14   /   Sthaneeyata   Neeti­14­01/2015/5938   In
exercise of powers conferred by the provisions by
sub­paragraph   (1)   of   paragraph   5   of   the   Fifth
Schedule to the Constitution of India, the Governor of
Jharkhand,   hereby,   directs   that   the   provisions
Page  68 of  107
regarding "eligibility of the appointment" mentioned
in the various appointment rules as per list enclosed,
Government may amend from time to time, framed
by the State Government under  article 309 of the
Constitution for the appointment to the district cadre
posts, shall be deemed to the modified and enforced
up to the extent as specified, hereinafter, namely:­
"Notwithstanding anything contained in these
rules or any other Act, Order, Direction, Rules
or Law for the time being in force, only local
residents of the districts namely ­ Sahebganj,
Pakur,   Dumka,   Jamtara,   Latehar,   Ranchi,
Khunti,   Gumla,   Lohardagga,   Simdega,   East
Singhbhum, West Singhbhum and W.P.(C) No.
1387 of 2017 and analogous mattersSraikelaKharsawan, shall be eligible for recruitment to
the vacancies arising in class­3 and class­4
posts   of   the   district   cadre   in   various
department  of  the  concerned  districts, for a
period of 10 years from the date of issue of
this notification."
By order in the name of the 
Governor of Jharkhand 
Sd/­ Nidhi Khare
Principal Secretary to the
Government
16.1.Thus, by the aforesaid impugned Order / Notification
the   Governor   of   Jharkhand   has   directed   that   the
provisions   regarding   “eligibility   of   the   appointment”
mentioned in the various Appointment Rules, and as
framed by the State Government under Article 309 of
the Constitution of India for the appointment to the
District Cadre posts, shall be deemed to the modified
and enforced up to the extent that cent­percent ClassPage  69 of  107
III and Class­IV posts in various department in the 13
Scheduled   districts   shall   be   reserved   for   the   local
residents of the concerned districts only. At this stage,
it is required to be noted that by the said Notification
only the service Rules framed under Article 309 of the
Constitution of India came to be modified and even the
list attached to the notification does not contain any
Act of the Parliament or of the State Legislature. By
the impugned judgment and order, the High Court,
following   and   relying   upon   the   decision   of   the
Constitutional   Bench   of   this   Court   in   the   case   of
Chebrolu Leela Prasad Rao (supra) has declared the
aforesaid   Order   /   Notification   dated   14.07.2016   as
unconstitutional   and   consequently   has   quashed
appointments of the trained graduate teachers made
pursuant to the Advertisement No. 21/2016 published
on 28th December, 2016 as modified by Advertisement
dated 4.2.2017, in the Scheduled Districts relating to
the   local   resident   of   those   Districts   only.   That
thereafter, the High Court has directed that all the
8423   posts   of   Trained   Graduate   Teacher   in   the
Page  70 of  107
Government   Secondary   Schools   in   the   scheduled
districts of the State of Jharkhand shall be advertised
afresh and a fresh selection process be undertaken in
accordance   with   law.   The   impugned   judgment   and
order   passed   by   the   High   Court   and   the   aforesaid
directions is the subject matter of the present appeals. 
17. Having heard the learned counsel for the respective
parties   and   considering   the   impugned   common
judgment and order passed by the High Court, the
questions which are posed for consideration of this
Court are as under:
I. Whether   in   exercise   of   powers   conferred   under
paragraph   5(1)   of   the   Fifth   Schedule   to   the
Constitution   of   India,   whether,   the   Governor   can
provide for 100% reservation contrary to Part III of
the   Constitution   of   India,   more   particularly,
guaranteed under Article 16(1) and (2) ?
II. Whether in exercise of powers under paragraph 5(1)
of the Fifth Schedule to the Constitution of India the
Governor   has   the   power   to   modify   the   relevant
Recruitment Rules framed under Article 309 of the
Constitution of India ?
III. What order ?
Page  71 of  107
17.1.While considering the aforesaid questions / issues the
relevant Constitutional provisions which would have a
direct bearing are required to be referred to, which are
as under: ­
“Article   13.  Laws   inconsistent   with   or   in
derogation   of   the   fundamental   rights­   (1)   All
laws in force in the territory of India immediately
before the commencement of this Constitution, in so
far as they are inconsistent with the provisions of
this Part, shall, to the extent of such inconsistency,
be void. 
(2) The State shall not make any law which takes
away or abridges the rights conferred by this Part
and any law made in contravention of this clause
shall, to the extent of the contravention, be void.
(3)   In   this   article,   unless   the   context   otherwise
requires,— (a) “law” includes any Ordinance, order,
bye­law,   rule,   regulation,   notification,   custom   or
usage having in the territory of India the force of
law; 
(b) “laws in force” includes laws passed or made by
a   Legislature   or   other   competent   authority   in   the
territory of India before the commencement of this
Constitution   and   not   previously   repealed,
notwithstanding   that   any   such   law   or   any   part
thereof may not be then in operation either at all or
in particular areas. 
(4)   Nothing   in   this   article   shall   apply   to   any
amendment of this Constitution made under article
368.
xxx xxx xxx
Article  16.  Equality  of  opportunity   in  matters
of public employment ­  (1) There shall be equality
of opportunity for all citizens in matters relating to
employment or appointment to any office under the
Page  72 of  107
State. 
(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 of, any employment or office under the State.
(3) Nothing in this article shall prevent Parliament
from   making   any   law   prescribing,   in  regard   to   a
class or classes of employment or appointment to an
office  1[under  the  Government  of, or any  local  or
other authority within, a State or Union territory, any
requirement   as   to   residence   within   that   State   or
Union   territory]   prior   to   such   employment   or
appointment.
(4) Nothing in this 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.
(4A) Nothing in this article shall prevent the State
from   making   any   provision   for   reservation   3[in
matters of promotion, with consequential seniority,
to   any   class]   or   classes   of   posts   in   the   services
under the State in favour of the Scheduled Castes
and the Scheduled Tribes which, in the opinion of
the   State,   are   not   adequately   represented   in   the
services under the State.
(4B) Nothing in this article shall prevent the State
from considering any unfilled vacancies of a year
which are reserved for being filled up in that year in
accordance with any provision for reservation made
under clause (4) or clause (4A) as a separate class of
vacancies to be filled up in any succeeding year or
years   and   such   class   of   vacancies   shall   not   be
considered together with the vacancies of the year in
which they are being filled up for determining the
ceiling of fifty per cent. reservation on total number
of vacancies of that year.
(5) Nothing in this article shall affect the operation of
any law which provides that the incumbent of an
Page  73 of  107
office in connection with the affairs of any religious
or denominational institution or any member of the
governing body thereof shall be a person professing
a   particular   religion   or   belonging   to   a   particular
denomination.
xxx xxx xxx
Article   46.   Promotion   of   educational   and
economic   interests   of   Scheduled   Castes,
Scheduled  Tribes  and  other  weaker   sections  ­
The   State   shall   promote   with   special   care   the
educational and economic interests of the weaker
sections   of   the   people,   and,   in   particular,   of   the
Scheduled  Castes  and  the Scheduled Tribes, and
shall protect them from social injustice and all forms
of exploitation.
xxx xxx xxx
Article 244. Administration of Scheduled Areas
and  Tribal  Areas  ­  (1) The provisions of the Fifth
Schedule   shall   apply   to   the   administration   and
control of the Scheduled Areas and Scheduled Tribes
in   any   State   1***   other   than   2[the   States   of
Assam3[,4[Meghalaya, Tripura and Mizoram]. 
(2) The provisions of the Sixth Schedule shall apply
to   the   administration   of   the   tribal   areas   in   2[the
States   of   Assam   3[,5[Meghalaya,   Tripura   and
Mizoram]
xxx xxx xxx
Article   246.   Subject­matter   of   laws   made   by
Parliament and by the Legislatures of States  ­
(1) Notwithstanding anything in clauses (2) and (3),
Parliament has exclusive power to make laws with
respect to any of the matters enumerated in List I in
the Seventh Schedule (in this Constitution referred to
as the “Union List”). 
(2)   Notwithstanding   anything   in   clause   (3),
Parliament,   and,   subject   to   clause   (1),   the
Legislature of any State 1*** also, have power to
make   laws   with   respect   to   any   of   the   matters
Page  74 of  107
enumerated in List III in the Seventh Schedule (in
this   Constitution   referred   to   as   the   “Concurrent
List”).
(3) Subject to clauses (1) and (2), the Legislature of
any State 1*** has exclusive power to make laws for
such State or any part thereof with respect to any of
the   matters   enumerated   in   List   II   in   the   Seventh
Schedule   (in   this   Constitution   referred   to   as   the
“State List”).
(4) Parliament has power to make laws with respect
to any matter for any part of the territory of India not
included   2[in   a   State]   notwithstanding   that   such
matter is a matter enumerated in the State List.
xxx xxx xxx
Article  254.   Inconsistency  between   laws  made
by   Parliament   and   laws   made   by   the
Legislatures of States ­    (1) If any provision of a
law made by the Legislature of a State is repugnant
to any provision of a law made by Parliament which
Parliament is competent to enact, or to any provision
of an existing law with respect to one of the matters
enumerated in the Concurrent List, then, subject to
the   provisions   of   clause   (2),   the   law   made   by
Parliament, whether passed before or after the law
made by the Legislature of such State, or, as the
case may be, the existing law, shall prevail and the
law made by the Legislature of the State shall, to the
extent of the repugnancy, be void.
(2) Where a law made by the Legislature of a State
1*** with respect to one of the matters enumerated
in   the   Concurrent   List   contains   any   provision
repugnant to the provisions of an earlier law made
by Parliament or an existing law with respect to that
matter, then, the law so made by the Legislature of
such   State   shall,   if   it   has   been   reserved   for   the
consideration of the President and has received his
assent, prevail in that State:
Provided that nothing in this clause shall prevent
Parliament from enacting at any time any law with
respect to the same matter including a law adding
Page  75 of  107
to, amending, varying or repealing the law so made
by the Legislature of the State.
xxx xxx xxx
309.  Recruitment  and  conditions  of  service  of
persons serving the Union or a State ­ Subject to
the   provisions   of   this   Constitution,   Acts   of   the
appropriate   Legislature   may   regulate   the
recruitment,   and   conditions   of   service   of   persons
appointed, to public services and posts in connection
with the affairs of the Union or of any State:
Provided   that   it   shall   be   competent   for   the
President or such person as he may direct in the
case of services and posts in connection with the
affairs of the Union, and for the Governor of a State
or   such   person   as   he   may   direct   in   the   case   of
services and posts in connection with the affairs of
the State, to make rules regulating the recruitment,
and the conditions of service of persons appointed,
to such services and posts until provision in that
behalf is made by or under an Act of the appropriate
Legislature   under   this   article,   and   any   rules   so
made shall have effect subject to the provisions of
any such Act
Para 5 of the Fifth Schedule of the Constitution
5.   Law   applicable   to   Scheduled   Areas.—(1)
Notwithstanding anything in this Constitution, the
Governor may by public notification direct that any
particular Act of Parliament or of the Legislature of
the State shall not apply to a Scheduled Area or any
part   thereof   in   the   State   or   shall   apply   to   a
Scheduled   Area   or   any   part   thereof   in   the   State
subject to such exceptions and modifications as he
may   specify   in   the   notification   and   any   direction
given under this sub­paragraph may be given so as
to have retrospective effect. 
(2) The Governor may make regulations for the peace
and good government of any area in a State which is
for the time being a Scheduled Area. In particular
Page  76 of  107
and   without   prejudice   to   the   generality   of   the
foregoing power, such regulations may—
(a) prohibit or restrict the transfer of land by or
among members  of  the  Scheduled  Tribes in
such area; 
(b) regulate the allotment of land to members
of the Scheduled Tribes in such area; 
(c)   regulate   the   carrying   on   of   business   as
money­lender by persons who lend money to
members   of   the   Scheduled   Tribes   in   such
area.
(3) In making any such regulation as is referred to in
sub­paragraph   (2)   of   this   paragraph,   the
Governor1***   may   repeal   or   amend   any   Act   of
Parliament or of the Legislature of the State or any
existing law which is for the time being applicable to
the area in question. 
(4) All regulations made under this paragraph shall
be submitted forthwith to the President and, until
assented to by him, shall have no effect.
(5)   No   regulation   shall   be   made   under   this
paragraph   unless   the   Governor   making   the
regulation has, in the case where there is a Tribes
Advisory   Council   for   the   State,   consulted   such
Council.
17.2.As   per   Article   246(1),   notwithstanding   anything
contained in clauses (2) and (3), Parliament shall have
exclusive power to make laws with respect to any of the
matters enumerated in List I in the Seventh Schedule
(Union   List).   As   per   Article   246(2),   notwithstanding
anything   in   clause   (3),   Parliament,   and,   subject   to
clause (1), the Legislature of any State also shall have
Page  77 of  107
power to make laws with respect to any of the matters
enumerated   in   List   III   in   the   Seventh   Schedule
(Concurrent List). As per Article 254 of the Constitution
of India, if any provision of law made by the Legislature
of a State is repugnant to any provision of a law made
by Parliament which Parliament is competent to enact,
or to any provision of an existing law with respect to
one of the matters enumerated in the Concurrent List,
then, subject to the provisions of clause (2), the law
made by Parliament, whether passed before or after the
law made by the Legislature of such State, or, as the
case may be, the existing law, shall prevail and the law
made by the Legislature of the State shall, to the extent
of the repugnancy, be void. Thus, as per the aforesaid
Constitutional provisions, law made by the Parliament
is   supreme   and   shall   prevail   and   every   State/State
Legislature   is   bound   by   the   law   made   by   the
Parliament.   However,   paragraph   5   of   the   Fifth
Schedule to the Constitution of India is an exception.
Notwithstanding   the   aforesaid   provisions,   giving
supremacy  to  the  law  made  by  the  Parliament,   the
Page  78 of  107
Governor   may   direct   that   any   particular   Act   of
Parliament or of the Legislature of the State shall not
apply to a Scheduled Area or any part thereof in the
State or shall apply to a Scheduled Area or any part
thereof in the State subject to such exceptions and
modifications   as   he   may   specify   in   the   notification.
Thus, the expression “notwithstanding anything in this
Constitution” is related to the Constitutional provisions
regarding   the   supremacy   of   the   law   made   by   the
Parliament or State Legislature. This aspect shall be
discussed   herein   below   while   considering   the
submissions made on behalf of the appellants herein
regarding paragraph 5(1) of the Fifth Schedule to the
Constitution of India.
17.3.Therefore, the short question which is posed for the
consideration of this Court is, whether, in exercise of
powers   conferred   under   paragraph   5(1)   of   the   Fifth
Schedule to the Constitution, the Governor can make
provisions for 100% reservation in the scheduled Areas
/ Districts which may affect the rights of the citizens
Page  79 of  107
guaranteed   under   Part   III,   more   particularly,   under
Article 16 (2) of the Constitution  of India? Whether
such reservation would not be hit by Article 13 of the
Constitution of India?
18. Identical   question   came   to   be   considered   by   the
Constitutional   Bench   of   this   Court   in   the   case   of
Chebrolu Leela Prasad Rao (supra). Before this Court
the Governor of State of Andhra Pradesh issued GO in
exercise   of   powers   under   paragraph   5(1)   of   the
Schedule 5 of the Constitution of India,  directing the
posts   of   teachers   in   educational   institutions   in   the
scheduled tribe areas shall be reserved for Scheduled
Tribes only notwithstanding anything contained in any
other order or rule or law in force. Several questions
were referred to the Constitution Bench. The following
questions were ultimately framed for consideration by
the Constitutional Bench:
(1) What is the scope of paragraph 5(1), Schedule V to the
Constitution of India?
(a) Does the provision empower the Governor to
make a new law?
Page  80 of  107
(b)   Does   the   power   extend   to   subordinate
legislation?
(c) Can the exercise of the power conferred therein
override   fundamental   rights   guaranteed   under
Part III?
(d) Does the exercise of such power override any
parallel exercise of power by the President under
Article 371D?
(2) Whether 100% reservation is permissible under the
Constitution?
(3)   Whether   the   notification   merely   contemplates   a
classification under  Article 16(1)and not reservation
under Article 16(4)?
(4) Whether the conditions of eligibility (i.e., origin and
cut­off date) to avail the benefit of reservation in
the notification are reasonable?"
18.1. Question No.1(a), (b), (c) and question no.3 referred to
herein above are relevant for our purpose.
18.2. After   taking   into   consideration   the   relevant
Constitutional   provisions   viz.   Article   244,   Fifth
Schedule, so far as question No.1(a) viz. whether the
provision empower the Governor to make a new law is
concerned, it is observed and held by the Constitution
Page  81 of  107
Bench that the Governor’s power to  make new law is
not available in view of the clear language of Para 5(1)
Fifth   Schedule   does   not   recognize   or   confer   such
power, but only power is not to apply the law or to
apply  it with exceptions or modifications.(para 51)
18.3. Answering question no.1(b) viz. does the power extend
to subordinate legislation, it is observed and held that
Rules framed under the proviso to Article 309 of the
Constitution cannot be said to be an Act of Parliament
or of State Legislature. It is observed and held that
the power of Governor under Para 5(1) of Schedule V
of the Constitution is restricted to modifying or not to
apply, Acts of the Parliament or Legislature of the
State. Thus, Rules could not have been amended in
the exercise of the powers conferred under Para 5(1)
of the Schedule V. It is further observed and held that
the Rules made under the proviso to Article 309 of the
Constitution cannot be said to be an enactment by
the State Legislature. (paras 52 to 57).
Page  82 of  107
18.4. While answering question 1(c) viz.  can the exercise of
the   powers   conferred   under   Para   5(1)   of   Fifth
Schedule   override   fundamental   rights   guaranteed
under Part III, after considering the decisions of this
Court in the case of Kesavananda Bharati Vs. State
of Kerala reported in (1973) 4 SCC 225; Waman Rao
Vs.  Union  of   India  reported in  (1981)  2  SCC  362;
I.R. Coelho (Dead) by Lrs. Vs. State of T.N. reported
in  (2007)   2   SCC   1; S.R.   Chaudhuri   Vs.   State   of
Punjab  reported in  (2001)  7  SCC  126;  Ajay  Hasia
Vs.   Khalid   Mujib   Sehravadi  reported   in  (1981)   1
SCC  722; E.P.   Royappa   Vs.  State  of   Tamil   Nadu
reported in  (1974)   2   SCC   3; Maneka   Gandhi   Vs.
Union   of   India  reported   in  (1978)   1   SCC   248;
Ramana Dayaram Shetty Vs. International Airport
Authority   of   India   and   Ors.  reported in  (1979)   3
SCC 489; Neelima Misra Vs. Harinder Kaur Paintal
reported in (1990) 2 SCC 746 and Peerless General
Finance and Investment Co. Ltd Vs. Reserve Bank
Page  83 of  107
of India  reported in  (1992)  2 SCC  343, it is finally
observed and held that the power conferred on the
Governor   to   deal   with   the   scheduled   areas   is   not
meant to prevail over the Constitution. The power of
the Governor is pari passu with the legislative power
of Parliament and the State. The legislative power can
be exercised by the Parliament or the State 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. It has to be exercised subject to Part III
and other provisions of the Constitution. It is further
observed   and   held   that   when   Para   5   of   the   Fifth
Schedule confers power on the Governor, it is not
meant to confer an arbitrary power. The Constitution
can never aim to confer any arbitrary power on the
constitutional authorities. They are to be exercised in
a   legal   and   rational   manner   keeping   in   view   the
objectives   and   provisions   of   the   Constitution.   The
powers are not in derogation but in the furtherance of
Page  84 of  107
the   Constitutional   aims   and   objectives.   (para   78).
While   holding   so,   the   Constitutional   Bench   also
considered the effect of the non­obstante clause used
in para 5(1) of the Fifth Schedule of the Constitution.
While   considering   the   effect   of   the   non­obstante
clause, it is observed in para 69, 70, 74 and 75 as
under:
“69.  Para   5(1)   of   the   Fifth   Schedule   of   the
Constitution   starts   with   a   nonobstante   clause.
What is the effect of the non obstante clause vis­avis   the   applicability   to   other   provisions   of   the
Constitution? Whether the provisions of Para 5(1)
prevail over all other provisions of the Constitution?
Whether the fundamental rights in Part III of the
Constitution   are   inapplicable   and   need   not   be
satisfied?
70.  The provision of the Fifth Schedule beginning
with the words “notwithstanding anything in this
Constitution” cannot be construed as taking away
the   provision   outside   the   limitations   on   the
amending   power   and   has   to   be   harmoniously
construed   consistent   with   the   foundational
principles   and   the   basic   features   of   the
Constitution.
XXXXXXXXXXXX
74. The nonobstante clause contained in Para 5(1)
of the Fifth Schedule of the Constitution means the
Governor   can   exercise   power   in   spite   of   the
provisions   contained   in  Article   245  of   the
Constitution, conferring the power upon Parliament
to make laws and the legislature of the State. The
Parliament   has   the   power   to   enact   the   law.   It
cannot be questioned on the ground that it would
have extra territorial operation.
Page  85 of  107
75.  The   nonobstante   clause   has   also   been
considered   in  Smt.   Parayankandiyal   Eravath
Kanapravan Kalliani Amma & Ors. v. K. Devi &
Ors.,   AIR   1996   SC   1963.   The   scope   has   to   be
considered in the context and purpose for which it
has been carved out.”
18.5. As observed herein above, we are also of the opinion
that the non­obstante clause contained in para 5(1) of
the Fifth Schedule of the Constitution shall be read
with   respect   to   power   of   the   Governor   to   suspend
and/or modify the law made by the Parliament despite
Articles 244 and 245 of the Constitution of India. It
cannot   be   read   as   conferring   upon   the   Governor
absolute   power   and/or   unfettered   power,
notwithstanding the provisions contained in Part III of
the Constitution.
19. While   answering   question   no.2   viz.   whether   100%
reservation   is   permissible   under   the   Constitution,
after   referring   to   and   /   or   considering   various
decisions of this Court on 100% reservation and after
considering Articles 14, 15 and 16 and other relevant
Constitutional   provisions   and   after   taking   into
Page  86 of  107
consideration   decision  of  this Court  in the  case of
Indra Sawhney (supra), it is ultimately observed and
held   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.
19.1. Thus,   in   the   case   of  Chebrolu   Leela   Prasad   Rao
(supra), after considering the relevant Constitutional
provisions   in   detail   including   the   powers   of   the
Governor conferred in para 5(1) of the Fifth Schedule
of the Constitution of India, it is ultimately observed
and held as under:
“166. We answer the questions referred to us thus:
Page  87 of  107
Question   No.1:   The   Governor   in   the   exercise   of
powers   under   Para   5(1),   Fifth   Schedule   of   the
Constitution, can exercise the powers concerning
any   particular   Act   of   the   Parliament   or   the
legislature of the State. The Governor can direct
that   such   law   shall   not   apply   to   the   Scheduled
Areas   or   any   part   thereof.   The   Governor   is
empowered   to   apply   such   law   to   the   Scheduled
Area or any part thereof in the State subject to
such   exceptions   and   modifications   as   he   may
specify   in   the   notification   and   can   also   issue   a
notification with retrospective effect.
Question   No.1(a):   The   Governor   is   empowered
under Para 5(1), Fifth Schedule of the Constitution,
to direct that any particular Act of Parliament or
the Legislature of the State, shall not apply to a
Scheduled Area or apply the same with exceptions
and   modifications.   The   Governor   can   make   a
provision   within   the   parameters   of   amendment/
modification   of   the   Act   of   Parliament   or   State
legislature.   The   power   to   make   new
laws/regulations,   is   provided   in   Para   5(2),   Fifth
Schedule   of   the   Constitution   for   the   purpose
mentioned therein, not under Para 5(1) of the Fifth
Schedule to the Constitution of India.
Question No.1(b): The power of the Governor under
Para 5(1), Fifth Schedule to the Constitution does
not   extend   to   subordinate   legislation,   it   is   with
respect to an Act enacted in the sovereign function
by the Parliament or legislature of the State which
can be dealt with.
Question No.1(c): The Governor’s power under Para
5(1) of the Fifth Schedule to the Constitution is
subject   to   some   restrictions,   which   have   to   be
observed by the Parliament or the legislature of the
State while making law  and cannot  override  the
fundamental rights guaranteed under Part III of the
Constitution.
Question No.1(d): In exercise of power under Para
5(1) of the Fifth Schedule to the Constitution of
India, the Governor cannot override the notification
issued by the President in the exercise of powers
under  Article 371D.The power has to be exercised
harmoniously   with   such   an   order   issued   under
Page  88 of  107
Article 371D, not in conflict thereof.
Question   No.2:   G.O.Ms.   No.3/2000   providing   for
100 per cent reservation is not permissible under
the Constitution, the outer limit is 50 per cent as
specified in Indra Sawhney (supra).
Question No.3: The notification in question cannot
be   treated   as   classification   made   underArticle
16(1).Once   the   reservation   has   been   provided   to
Scheduled   Tribes   under  Article   16(4),   no   such
power   can   be   exercised   under  Article   16(1).  The
notification is violative of Articles 14 and 16(4) of
the Constitution of India.
Question No.4 : The conditions of eligibility in the
notification with a cut­off date i.e. 26­1­1950, to
avail the benefits  of reservation, is unreasonable
and arbitrary one.”
20. Applying law laid down by the Constitution Bench of
this Court in the case of Chebrolu Leela Prasad Rao
(supra),   to   the   facts   of   the   case   on   hand,   the
impugned Order/ Notification No.5938 and the Order
No.5939 dated 14.07.2016 providing 100% reservation
for   the   local   residents   of   concerned   Scheduled
Districts/ Areas only can be said to be 
(1) beyond the scope and ambit of powers conferred
upon   the   Governor   under   para   5(1)   of   the   Fifth
Schedule of the Constitution of India; 
Page  89 of  107
(2) 100% reservation provided for the local residents of
the concerned Scheduled Districts / Areas only would
be violative of Article 16(2) of the Constitution of India
and affecting rights of the other candidates / citizens
of non­scheduled areas / Districts guaranteed under
Part III of the Constitution of India; 
(3) the exercise of powers by the Governor under para
5(1) of the Fifth Schedule of the Constitution of India
modifying Recruitment Rules, 2015 which are framed
under Article 309 of the Constitution of India which
can be said to be subordinate legislation and cannot
be   said   to   be   an   Act   or   the   Law   made   by   the
Parliament and / or State Legislature is beyond the
scope and ambit of Governor’s power under para 5(1)
of the Fifth Schedule of the Constitution of India.
21. The submission on behalf of the appellants and State
that the decision of this Court in the case of Chebrolu
Leela  Prasad  Rao   (supra)  shall not be applicable to
the facts of the case on hand inasmuch as in the said
case there was 100% reservation for Scheduled Tribe
Page  90 of  107
candidates which was held to be violating the rights of
the other reserved category candidates also and that
the decision of this Court in the case of  Chebrolu
Leela   Prasad   Rao   (supra)  is   required   to   be
reconsidered is concerned has no substance. What is
required to be considered is the  ratio decidendi  and
law laid down by this Court. There is clear law laid
down by Constitution Bench of this Court as noted
above.  The decision of the Constitution Bench which
is   rendered   after   considering   the   relevant
constitutional provisions and a number of decisions of
this Court is as such binding on us. It cannot be said
that   the   relevant   Constitutional   provisions   and/or
binding decisions of this Court have not been dealt
with   and/or   considered   by   this   Court.   The
Constitutional   Bench   decision   of   this   Court   in   the
case   of  Chebrolu   Leela   Prasad   Rao   (supra)  also
cannot be said to be per incuriam    ignoring and/or
taking   a   contrary   view   than   any   of   the   binding
decision of this Court. As such and as observed herein
Page  91 of  107
above, we reiterate that we are bound by the law laid
down by this Court, more particularly, a Constitution
Bench decision of this Court. We see no reason not to
follow the binding Constitution Bench decision of this
Court   in   the   case   of  Chebrolu   Leela   Prasad   Rao
(supra). We see no reason to take a different view than
the view taken by the Constitution Bench of this court
in the case of Chebrolu Leela Prasad Rao (supra). We
also see no reason to refer the matter to a Larger
Bench as prayed by some of the counsel appearing on
behalf of the appellants – candidates belonging to the
Scheduled Areas/ Districts.
22. One other submission which is made by the learned
Advocate   General   appearing   on   behalf   of   the   State
before the High Court was that in order to overcome
the   factors   of   low   human   development   indices,
backwardness, poverty etc., in the scheduled districts
and to secure justice ­ social, economic and political,
the notification  was issued by the Governor of the
State for protecting the interests of the residents in
Page  92 of  107
the scheduled districts. That even otherwise, it would
be of immense benefit to the school­going children in
the scheduled districts, if they are taught in their own
tribal   language   by   the   local   teachers,   than   the
outsiders, who may not be well conversant with the
local language.   At the outset, it is required to be
noted   that   such   submission   was   not   pressed   into
service heavily by any of the counsel appearing on
behalf   of   the   appellants   before   the   High   Court.
However, it is to be noted that in the case of Chebrolu
Leela Prasad  Rao   (supra)  the Constitution Bench of
this Court also considered the very submission and
negated the same by observing in para 130 and 131
as under:
“130. No law mandates that only tribal teachers can
teach in the scheduled areas; thus, the action defies
the logic. Another reason given is the phenomenal
absenteeism of teachers in schools. That could not
have   been   a   ground   for   providing   100   percent
reservation to the tribal teachers in the areas. It is
not the case that incumbents of other categories are
not available in the areas. When a district is a unit
for the employment, the ground applied for providing
reservation   for   phenomenal   absenteeism   is
irrelevant and could not have formed the basis for
providing 100 percent reservation. The problem of
absenteeism   could   have   been   taken   care   of   by
providing better facilities and other incentives.
Page  93 of  107
131. The reason assigned that reservation was to
cover impetus in the scheduled areas in the field of
education   and   to   strengthen   educational
infrastructure is also equally bereft of substance. By
depriving opportunity to the others, it cannot be said
that any impetus could have been given to the cause
of students and effective education, and now that
could have been strengthened. The provisions of 100
percent reservation are ignoring the merit. Thus, it
would   weaken   the   educational   infrastructure   and
the merit and the standard of education imparted in
the   schools.   Educational   development   of   students
cannot   be   made   only   by   a   particular   class   of
teachers   appointed   by   providing   reservation,
ignoring merit in toto. The ideal approach would be
that teachers are selected based on merit.”
22.1. Even otherwise, it is to be noted that it may be true
that so far as basic education (at the level of primary
section)   is   concerned,   it   may   help   student   at   the
primary level (while providing basic education) to be
taught in their own tribal language.   But the same
principle may not be applicable when question is of
providing   education   at   higher   level   viz.   above   5th
standard.   Therefore,   if   the   candidates   belonging   to
other areas (non­Scheduled Areas/ Districts) are given
an opportunity to impart education (who may be more
meritorious   than   the   candidates   belonging   to   the
Scheduled   Areas   /   Districts)   than   it   will   be   more
beneficial to the students belonging to the Scheduled
Page  94 of  107
Areas and their quality of the education shall certainly
improve. The quality of education of the school­going
children   cannot   be   compromised   by   giving   100%
reservation in favour of the teachers of the same/some
districts   and   prohibiting   the   appointment   to   more
meritorious teachers.
23. At this stage, it is required to be noted that even the
impugned   Order/Notification   dated   14.07.2016   and
the   advertisement   providing   100%   reservations   for
local   residents   of   concerned   Scheduled
Areas/Districts can be said to be violative of Article 13
of the Constitution of India also. As observed herein
above, the impugned Order/Notification making 100%
reservation   for   the   local   resident   of   the   concerned
Scheduled Districts/Areas is violative of Article 16(2)
of   the   Constitution   of   India   as   it   affects   the
fundamental   rights   guaranteed   to   the   candidate
belonging   to   the   non­Scheduled   Areas   guaranteed
under  part   III  of  the   Constitution   of   India.   As  per
Article 13 of the Constitution of India, the State shall
Page  95 of  107
not make any law which takes away or abridges the
rights conferred by this Part and any law made in
contravention of Article 13(2) shall to the extent of the
contravention,   be   void.   Therefore,   also   impugned
Notification/Order/Advertisement   making   100%
reservation   for   the   local   resident   of   the   concerned
Scheduled Areas / Districts shall be ultra vires Article
13 of the Constitution of India and shall be void. 
24. Even under Article 16(3) of the Constitution of India, it
is the Parliament alone, which is authorized to make
any law prescribing, in regard to a class or classes of
employment or appointment  to an office under the
Government of, or any local or other authority within,
a   State   of   Union   Territory,   any   requirement   as   to
residence within the State or Union territory prior to
such employment or appointment. As per Article 35 of
the Constitution  of India, notwithstanding  anything
contained   in the  Constitution,  the  Parliament  shall
have and the Legislature of a State shall  not have the
power to make laws with respect to any of the matters
Page  96 of  107
which, under clause (3) of Article 16 may be provided
for   law   made   by   Parliament.   Therefore,   impugned
Notification/Order making 100% reservation for the
local   resident   of   the   concerned   Scheduled
Area/Districts (reservation on the basis of resident) is
ultra   vires   to   Article   35   r/w   Article   16(3)   of   the
Constitution of India.
25. Applying the law laid down by this Court in the case of
Chebrolu Leela Prasad Rao (supra) and in view of the
above discussion and for the reasons stated above, the
High Court has not committed any error in concluding
and holding that the Notification No.5938 and Order
No.5939   dated   14.7.2016   issued   by   the   State
Government providing 100% reservation for the local
residents of concerned Scheduled Districts/Areas as
being   unconstitutional   and   ultra   vires   Articles   14,
13(2), 15 and 16(2) of the Constitution of India. It is
rightly observed and held that said Notification and
Order would also violate Articles 16(3) and 35(a­i) of
the Constitution of India. The High Court has also
Page  97 of  107
rightly observed and held that aforesaid Notification
and Order is ultra vires to paragraph 5(1) of the Fifth
Schedule   of   the   Constitution   of   India.   We   are   in
complete agreement with the view taken by the High
Court.
26. Now,   so   far   as   the   prayer   made   on   behalf   of   the
respective appellants herein­ candidates belonging to
the   Scheduled   Districts   /   Areas   who   were   already
appointed   and   whose   appointments   are   held   to   be
illegal is concerned and their plea that the judgment of
the High Court may be made applicable prospectively
is concerned, the same may not be accepted. Reliance
is placed upon the order passed by this Court in the
case of Chebrolu Leela Prasad Rao (supra), by which,
even this Court saved the appointments already made
and the another decision of this Court in the case of
Kailash Chand Sharma (supra) is concerned, such a
prayer   is   not   to   be   accepted.   Once   the
Notification/Order dated 14.07.2016 are held to be
ultra   vires,   as   a   necessary   consequences,
Page  98 of  107
appointments   made   pursuant   to   such
unconstitutional Notification/Order shall have to be
set aside and such appointments as such cannot be
regularized. As observed and held by this Court in the
case of Secretary,  State  of  Karnataka  and  Ors.  Vs.
Umadevi     (supra),   there   is   a   distinction   between
illegal and irregular appointment and that the former
cannot be regularized.
26.1. Now, so far as reliance placed upon the decision /
order passed by this Court in the case of  Chebrolu
Leela   Prasad   Rao   (supra)  (para   167   to   169)   is
concerned, at the outset, it is required to be noted
that before this Court the appointments were made
since   1986   onwards   and   such   appointments
continued for a number of years and therefore, this
Court saved the  appointments  already made which
were continued for a number of years. While saving
the appointments already made (which as such were
found to be illegal), this Court specifically observed
that   “in   the   peculiar   facts   and   circumstances,   the
Page  99 of  107
incumbents, who have been appointed, cannot be said
to   be   at   fault   and   they   belong   to   the   Scheduled
Tribes”.   Even   saving   of   the   appointments   was
conditional as observed in para 168.
26.2. Now, so far as reliance placed upon the decision of
this   Court   in   the   case   of  Kailash   Chand   Sharma
(supra) in support of the prayer to apply judgment of
the   High   Court   prospectively   and/or   to   save
appointments already made is concerned, it is to be
noted that in the said judgment also in para 47, it is
specifically observed by this Court that the Court has
moulded the relief on a consideration of special facts
and circumstances of the case by acting within the
framework   of   powers   vested   in   this   Court   under
Article 142 of the Constitution. It is further observed
that   even   the   judgment   may   not   be   treated   as   a
binding   precedent   in   any   case   that   may   arise   in
future.   Therefore,   once   this   Court   has   specifically
observed that the said judgment may not be treated as
a binding precedent in any case that may arise in
Page  100 of  107
future,   the   said   judgment   ought   not   to   have   been
relied upon on behalf of the appellants.
26.3. In the present case, impugned Notification / Order is
of the year 2016. The TGT recruitment process was
initiated   vide   advertisement   dated   28.12.2016   as
modified   on   04.02.2017   and   same   came   to   be
challenged   during   the   pendency   of   the   recruitment
process in the year 2017 itself. It is also required to be
noted   that   by   order   dated   21.2.2019   the   Division
Bench   of   the   High   Court   directed   that   notice   be
published   in   the   daily   newspapers   having   wide
circulation   about  institution  of  the  writ  petition   so
that the person interested may intervene in the writ
petition. Pursuant to such notice, several interlocutory
applications/intervener applications came to be filed,
which   came   to   be   allowed   by   the   High   Court.
Thereafter,   by   order   dated   18.09.2019,   taking   into
consideration   the   question   of   Constitutional
importance   involved   in   the   matters,   the   Division
Bench of the High Court referred the matter to be
Page  101 of  107
decided by a Larger Bench. By the same order dated
18.09.2019,   the   High   Court   stayed   the   further
implementation   and   operation   of   the   impugned
Notification   No.5938   and   Order   No.5939   dated
14.7.2016, subject to the appointments already made,
if any. Thus, from the aforesaid it can be seen that the
original   writ   petitioners   are   always   vigilant   and
diligent and approached the High Court at the first
available   opportunity.   Their   valuable   right   for
consideration of their cases for appointment in the
Scheduled Districts / Areas have been taken away.
They   have   been   successful   before   the   High   Court.
Therefore, in the facts and circumstance of the case,
the decision relied upon on behalf of the appellants to
make impugned judgment and order passed by the
High Court prospectively shall not be applicable to the
facts   of   the   case   on   hand.   In   the   facts   and
circumstances of the case, the prayer on behalf of the
appellants   herein   to   make   the   impugned   judgment
and   order   passed   by   the   High   Court   applicable
Page  102 of  107
prospectively,   deserves   to   be   rejected   and   is
accordingly rejected.
27. However,   at   the   same   time   and   in   the   facts   and
circumstances of the case and more particularly, by
quashing and setting aside the appointments already
made there is a likelihood of more complication which
would not be in the larger public interest. Hence, we
are of the opinion that this is a fit case to mould the
relief. Apart from the fact that the appellants herein –
selected   candidates   belonging   to   the   Scheduled
Districts/Areas are already working since last about
three years, in case appointments already made are
not protected then thousands of schools in the State
of   Jharkhand   would   be   without   teachers   and   the
ultimate   sufferers   would   be   the   children   of   tribal
areas. In view of the impugned judgment and order
passed by the High Court, by which, the High Court
has   held   all   the   appointments   made   in   Scheduled
Districts/Areas illegal and has further directed to go
for fresh recruitment, the State will have to undergo
Page  103 of  107
fresh   recruitment   process   which   may   take
considerable time and, in the meantime, there shall be
vacancies and number of schools in the tribal areas
shall be without teachers. Therefore, the Court has to
strike a balance between the rights of the original writ
petitioners   as   well   as   persons/teachers   already
appointed (whose appointments are held to be illegal)
and  also  the  public  interest.  Hence,  we are of the
opinion   that   while   moulding   the   relief,   instead   of
initiating a fresh recruitment process, if directions are
issued for preparation of fresh selection list based on
revised merit and based on already published cut off
obtained by the last selected candidate in each TGT
subject against respective categories., it will meet ends
of   justice   and   striking   the   balance   between   the
competing rights so that persons already appointed
may not have to lose their employment/job and at the
same   time   the   candidates   belonging   to   the   nonScheduled   Districts/Areas   may   also   get   their
opportunity for appointment as a teacher on merits in
the Scheduled Districts/Areas. We are of the view that
Page  104 of  107
no useful purpose will be served to go in for fresh/de
novo  recruitment   process   as   directed   by   the   High
Court in the impugned judgment and order.
28. In view of the above discussion and for the reasons
stated   above,   we   uphold   the   common   impugned
judgment   and   order   passed   by   the   High   Court
declaring   the   impugned   Notification/Order   dated
14.07.2016   as   unconstitutional   and   ultra   vires
Articles 14, 16(2), 16(3) and 35(a­i) of the Constitution
of India. We are in complete agreement with the view
taken by the High Court. Present Appeals challenging
the impugned common judgment and order passed by
the High Court are hereby dismissed to the aforesaid
extent. 
However, at the same time, the directions issued
by the  High  Court in  the  impugned judgment  and
order while setting aside all the appointments made
pursuant to the Notification / Order dated 14.07.2016
and Advertisement No.21 of 2016 dated 28.12.2016 as
modified on 04.12.2017 and to go in for fresh/de novo
Page  105 of  107
recruitment process for the Scheduled Areas/Districts
is hereby modified. It is now directed that instead of
fresh/de novo 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 TGT subject against
the respective categories with respect to entire State
and   respective   candidates   belonging   to   the   nonScheduled Areas and Scheduled Areas (Districts) shall
be   adjusted   accordingly   on   the   basis   of   individual
merit of the candidates. The present directions are
issued   considering   the   peculiar   facts   and
circumstances   of   the   case   and   more   particularly
considering   the   fact   that   there   are   already   vacant
posts of teachers in the State (in both Scheduled and
non­Scheduled Area). We are of the view that if the
appointments already made are set aside and fresh de
novo recruitment process for such posts is initiated, a
number of schools in the Scheduled Areas shall be
without any teacher which may ultimately affect larger
Page  106 of  107
public interest and education of concerned children in
the Scheduled Areas. 
Present direction is issued in exercise of powers
under Article 142 of the Constitution of India in the
larger public interest of Scheduled Areas/Districts. 
Present   appeals   are   partly   allowed   to   the
aforesaid   extent   modifying   the   impugned   common
judgment   and   order   passed   by   the   High   Court   as
observed herein above. 
In the facts and circumstances of the case, there
shall be no order as to costs.
……………………………….J.
        [M.R. SHAH]
……………………………….J.
              [B.V. NAGARATHNA] 
NEW DELHI;
AUGUST 02, 2022
Page  107 of  107

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

100 Questions on Indian Constitution for UPSC 2020 Pre Exam

संविधान की प्रमुख विशेषताओं का उल्लेख | Characteristics of the Constitution of India

भारतीय संविधान से संबंधित 100 महत्वपूर्ण प्रश्न उतर