Person Who Migrates From One State To Another Does Not Carry His Caste Status To Migrating State: Chhattisgarh HC
The Chhattisgarh High Court has observed that a person, who migrates from one State to the other does not carry his caste status to the migrating State, even if the same caste is recognized as a Scheduled Tribe Community in both States.
The Bench of Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas said, “From the aforesaid, it is lucid that a person, who migrates from one State to the other does not carry his caste status to the migrating State, even if the same caste is recognized as Scheduled Tribe Community in both States. The reason is not far to see. There may be caste or sub caste of same name, which are recognized in more than one States in India. However, merely because the caste known by a particular name is recognized in more than one States cannot extend the benefit of reservation in both the States. The recognition of a caste in a particular State as Scheduled Tribe Community or OBC is directly relatable to social, economic and educational backwardness faced by that caste in the home State. This geographical, social and educational backwardness existing in the home State cannot necessarily be the same in the other State.”
Senior Advocate K.A. Ansari appeared for the Petitioners whereas Senior Advocate Fouzia Mirza and GA Gary Mukhopadhyay appeared for the State.
A petition was filed under Article 226 of the Constitution seeking to quash the impugned order by which the High-Level Caste Scrutiny Committee, Raipur has cancelled the caste certificate issued by the Sub Divisional Officer to the petitioners.
A complaint was made before the Collector Bilaspur by the Petitioner claiming himself to be a member of the Bheel Tribal Community and on the basis of a forged caste certificate he has been appointed as Lecturer and thereafter promoted as Dy. Collector.
It was alleged that by using his power he had obtained a petrol pump in the name of his son i.e. Petitioner No.1. It was also alleged that the caste certificate had been issued without following the due process of law and thus prayed for declaration of caste certificate issue in favour of the petitioner to be null and void. Based on the complaint, proceedings were initiated by the High Power Committee/ Respondent which cancelled the caste certificate.
The Court discussed two issues i.e. whether a person belonging to a Scheduled Tribe in relation to a particular State can get benefits or concessions or reservations admissible to them in the original State from where they have been migrated and whether the Court can declare that the petitioners belonged to Scheduled Tribe Community being Nayak or Bheel Castes in the State of Chhattisgarh.
The Court relied on Articles 341 and 342 of the Constitution which discusses Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. “From bare perusal of the said provisions of Constitution of India, it is quite vivid that the public notification of 'tribes or tribal communities' by the President of India, upon consultation with the Governor, is a sine qua non for deeming such tribes or tribal communities to be 'Scheduled Tribes' in relation to that State or Union Territory for the purposes of the Constitution. The issue with regard to the benefits of reservation to a person who has migrated to one State to another State has recently has come up for consideration before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Chandigarh Housing Board v. Tarsem Lal 2024 SCC online SC 154 wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has examined all the judgments including the judgment of Bir Singh”, the Court said.
As regards the second issue the Court said that the declaration cannot be considered in view of the restriction imposed by Articles 341 and 342 of the Constitution of India as the declaration of the list of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes and backwards classes fall within the domain of the President of India and within the domain of parliament which cannot be done by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in view of the law laid by the Supreme Court in the case of State of Maharashtra and another v. Kesho Vishwanath Sonone and Anr (2021 SC).
“From the above stated legal position of law, it is quite vivid that this Court cannot issue a writ of mandamus directing that castes “Nayak and Bheel” are Scheduled Tribe and both the castes are one and the same.. Thus the point No. 2 is answered against the petitioner.”, the Court said.
Accordingly, the Court dismissed the Petition.
Cause Title: Suresh Kumar Dagla and Ors. v. State of Chhattisgarh and Ors. (Neutral Citation 2024:CGHC:22299)
Appearances:
Petitioners: Senior Advocate K.A. Ansari, Advocates Meera Ansari and Aman Ansari.
Respondents: Senior Advocate Fouzia Mirza, GA Gary Mukhopadhyay, Advocates S.S. Baghel, N.N. Roy, Navin Shukla, A.K. Prasad, Ratnesh Kumar Agrawal, Sourabh Agrawal and Prabha Sharma.