Citation : 2005 Local Law (CG) 185
The Chhattisgarh High Court has dismissed a writ petition challenging an order that denied Scheduled Caste reservation benefits to a student seeking admission to a state engineering college. Justice L.C. Bhadoo held that a candidate recognized as Scheduled Caste in one state cannot automatically claim identical benefits in another state, even if the caste has the same name in both places.
The case centered on a student who applied to the 2004 Pre-Engineering Test as a Scheduled Caste candidate on the strength of a caste certificate issued in Ambikapur. During counseling, the admissions authority refused to extend SC benefits, noting that the student’s family origin and residence were in Katni, Madhya Pradesh, as of the critical date under the Presidential Order. The student then took admission in the general category and approached the court.
The petitioner argued that Khatik is recognized as a Scheduled Caste in both Madhya Pradesh and Chhattisgarh. He relied on a Chhattisgarh government circular dated July 6, 2004, which said children of government employees allocated to Chhattisgarh after state reorganization would receive reservation benefits on the basis of involuntary migration. His mother, a Chief Municipal Officer originally from the undivided Madhya Pradesh cadre, had been allocated to Chhattisgarh after November 1, 2000.
The State opposed the plea, stressing that the student’s father continued to reside in Katni, Madhya Pradesh, and that the mother’s allocation to Chhattisgarh was voluntary. It also cited Union government circulars on caste certification for migrants and several Supreme Court decisions that restrict portability of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe status across states.
After reviewing the record, the High Court agreed with the State. It relied on Constitution Bench rulings in Marri Chandra Shekhar Rao v. Dean, Seth G.S. Medical College, Action Committee on Issue of Caste Certificate v. Union of India, and MCD v. Veena. These judgments explain that inclusion of a community in the Scheduled Caste list is state-specific and reflects the local extent of historical disadvantage. A person recognized as SC in State A does not automatically receive SC benefits in State B, even if a similarly named caste appears in State B’s Presidential list.
Justice Bhadoo also examined the July 6, 2004 Chhattisgarh circular. The court held that the student could not rely on it because his father, the natural guardian under the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, remained a resident of Madhya Pradesh and was not a government employee transferred to Chhattisgarh. The mother’s service allocation did not change the student’s state of origin for reservation purposes. More importantly, the court noted that under Article 341, only the President and Parliament can specify or alter the list of Scheduled Castes. Any state action that effectively modifies the Presidential list or its application exceeds constitutional limits. On that reasoning, the circular could not confer reservation benefits contrary to the constitutional scheme.
The court distinguished Sudhakar Vithal Kumbhare v. State of Maharashtra, where the Supreme Court addressed a unique regional bifurcation affecting a specific tribal community across borders. No similar regional continuity was shown here, since the family’s origin was in Katni, which did not undergo such bifurcation with Chhattisgarh.
Concluding that the petitioner was not entitled to SC reservation in Chhattisgarh, the High Court dismissed the writ petition without costs.
Case Details : W.P. No. 2510 of 2004, Raj Kapoor Kachwaha and Ors. vs. State of Chhattisgarh and Ors. (04.02.2005)
Counsels:
For Appellant/Petitioner/Plaintiff: Mr. Sanjay K. Agrawal, Advocate. For Respondents/Defendant: Mr. N.K. Agrawal, Dy. A.G.
Acts/Rules/Orders:
Constitution Of India – Article 226, Constitution Of India – Article 227, Constitution Of India – Article 341, Constitution Of India – Article 341 (1), Constitution Of India – Article 342; Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 – Section 4, Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 – Section 6
Cases Referred:
Action Committee on Issue of Caste Certificate to scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes in the State of Maharashtra and Anr. vs. Union of India (UOI) and Anr. ; Marri Chandra Shekhar Rao vs. Dean, Seth G.S. Medical College and Ors. ; U.P. Public Service Commission, Allahabad vs. Sanjay Kumar Singh ; Kumari Madhuri Patila and another vs. Addl. Commissioner, Tribal Development and others ; M.C.D. vs. Veena & Ors. ; Municipal Corporation of The City of Jabalpur vs. State of Madhya Pradesh ; Piare Lal vs. Union of India (UOI) and Ors.
======
संविधान — आरक्षण का लाभ — भारतीय संविधान का अनुच्छेद 341; Hindu Minority and Guardship Act, 1956 की धारा 4(b) और 6।
तथ्य संक्षेप
अधिकृत अधिकारी (प्रत्युत्तरकर्ता क्र. 2) ने निर्णय दिया कि याचिकाकर्ता क्र. 2 को अनुसूचित जाति प्रमाणपत्र के आधार पर शासकीय इंजीनियरिंग कॉलेज में आरक्षण/प्रवेश का अधिकार नहीं है। परिवार की उत्पत्ति व निवास 1950 की निर्णायक तिथि पर कटनी (मध्यप्रदेश) का पाया गया। याचिकाकर्ता की माता राज्य पुनर्गठन के बाद सेवाओं के आवंटन पर छत्तीसगढ़ आईं और नगर पालिका में अधिकारी हैं; पिता कटनी, म.प्र. में कृषक हैं।
मुख्य प्रश्न
क्या याचिकाकर्ता क्र. 2 को छत्तीसगढ़ में, खटिक जाति के प्रमाणपत्र के आधार पर, आरक्षण का लाभ और शासकीय इंजीनियरिंग कॉलेज में प्रवेश का अधिकार प्राप्त है?
पक्षकारों के तर्क (संक्षेप)
- याचिकाकर्ता: खटिक जाति म.प्र. और छत्तीसगढ़ दोनों में अनुसूचित जाति है; 06.07.2004 के राज्य परिपत्र (Annexure P-12) के अनुसार पुनर्गठन/अनैच्छिक प्रवासन की स्थिति में लाभ मिलना चाहिए; माता छत्तीसगढ़ कैडर में आवंटित हुई हैं।
- राज्य/प्रत्युत्तरकर्ता: अनुसूचित जाति/जनजाति की स्थिति राज्य-विशिष्ट है; पिता का स्थायी निवास कटनी (म.प्र.) है; माता का आवंटन स्वैच्छिक था; केंद्र के परिपत्रों और सर्वोच्च न्यायालय के संविधान पीठ के फैसलों के अनुसार दूसरे राज्य में स्वतः लाभ नहीं मिलता; P-12 से भी लाभ नहीं बनता।
न्यायालय का निष्कर्ष
- समान नाम वाली जाति दो राज्यों में सूचीबद्ध हो सकती है, पर सूचीकरण के आधार, स्थानीय सामाजिक व ऐतिहासिक वंचनाएँ और उनका स्तर भिन्न हो सकता है। इसलिए राज्य A की एससी स्थिति स्वतः राज्य B में मान्य नहीं होती।
- याचिकाकर्ता के पिता कटनी (म.प्र.) निवासी हैं; इस कारण याचिकाकर्ता का “मूल राज्य” म.प्र. माना गया। छत्तीसगढ़ के खटिक समुदाय के बराबर आरक्षण का दावा नहीं बनता।
- अनुच्छेद 341(2) के तहत एससी सूची में परिवर्तन केवल संसद कर सकती है; किसी राज्य का परिपत्र (P-12) राष्ट्रपति की सूची के प्रभाव को बदल नहीं सकता।
- हिंदू अल्पायु अभिभावकता अधिनियम की धारा 4(b) व 6 के अनुसार प्राकृतिक अभिभावक पहले पिता होते हैं, फिर माता। पिता सरकारी कर्मचारी नहीं हैं और म.प्र. में बसते हैं; इसलिए माता के सेवा-आवंटन के आधार पर P-12 का लाभ उपलब्ध नहीं।
- परिणामतः, छत्तीसगढ़ में आरक्षण का लाभ अस्वीकृत करना विधिसंगत है; याचिका निरस्त।
