This case spins arounds the order for a 100% reservation in class 3 and class 4 posts related to
teachers in Jharkhand which was passed by as a result of state legislation which would give a
complete amount of reservation to the locals of particular districts in Jharkhand, but only to
the people belonging to the community of schedule tribes would be allowed to be eligible in
the form of candidates applying for these posts. This created a deep situation of unrest in the
particular districts for which the order was passed and communities other than the scheduled
tribes were completely against the legislation issued by the state government, several writ
petitions challenging the legality of this order were filled by the people demanding
cancellation of this notification, since it was violative of their various fundamental rights
relating to employment, equality and was clearly seen as discriminating.
FACTS
13 districts were given the status of scheduled areas in the state of Jharkhand through
the aid of a notification by the President. This power which is given to the president in
under schedule 5 of the constitution of India 1 .
In the notification which was issued by the state government it was stated that only
the locally residing people of the 13 notified districts out of 24 districts in Jharkhand
who are the members of the scheduled tribe community were considered appropriate
to districts other than the notified districts and people of other states were not
permitted.
Applicants residing from other districts in Jharkhand filled for writ petition addressing
the legality of that notification by the state government.
The division bench of Jharkhand high court directed the matter to a larger bench and
the High Court put a stay over this notification. The writ petitioner professed that the
notification issued in which there is use of powers under schedule 5 of the Indian
constitution is violating article 14 and 16 of the constitution 2 .
The High Court mentioned the case of Chebrolu Leela Prasad Rao & Ors whose
decision was given by the Supreme Court and then the High Court declared the
notification issued by the State government not valid according to the constitution
since it transgresses article 16(3) and 35(a) of the constitution since such type of
powers are with the parliament and not the state legislature who made 100%
reservations for local of ST community 3 .
The High first cancelled the notification and then also the appointment of trained
graduate teachers in those districts and all those 8423 posts would be showed with
new criteria for selection 4 .
1 5 th Schedule of the constitution
2 Article 14 of the Constitution
3 Chebrolu leela Prasad Rao vs State of Andhra Pradesh
4 Article 16 of the constitution
ISSUES RAISED
Whether the governor has the ability to bestow 100% reservation in this
situation where the reservation is directly contradicting article 16(1) and (2)
under the 5 th schedule?
Whether the governor has the power to alter the recruitment related provisions
in article 309 of the constitution?
CONTENTION ON THE BEHALF OF APPELANT
The counsel which represented the appellant asserted that the High Court has
not understood the basic purpose behind the 5 th schedule in which powers are
given to them to remove their backwardness, that’s why they declared it ultra
vire 5
The counsel further asserted that since these people are very poor, backward,
have lack of water resources and lack basic amenities. There is also increasing
industrialisation in these areas which has affected these areas, so there is need
for these people to be uplifted. The notification was issued by the governor
was aimed at preserving the rights of the locals associated to scheduled tribe 6
CONTENTION ON THE BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT
Senior counsel on the behalf of respondent asserted that in the order of the
state government that only allowed the local people of that particular 13
districts to be eligible for the jobs is article 14 and 16 of the Indian
Constitution because then this would cause injustice to the people included in
other classes under part 3 of the Indian Constitution 7 .
5 5 th schedule and fate of the schedule tribes
6 Problems faced by the scheduled tribes
7 Article 35 (a) of the constitution
RATIONALE
The Supreme Court stated that numerous powers conferred to the governor
under schedule 5 of the Indian constitution cannot be used in the sense of
amending the rules. It was also said that the powers to make rules for the
betterment of underprivileged people which is given to the governor, that
cannot be said as law made by the state legislature. Thus, it was found that the
governor cannot interfere in this situation 8 .
The Supreme Court also contemplated the decision that was given in the case
of Indira Sawheny & Ors. vs Union of India & Ors. that by giving with a total
of 100% reservation is totally a prejudicial order and such type of reservation
order cannot be allowed 9 .
Further The Supreme Court used the laws which was brought about in the
judgment of Chebrolu Leela Prasad Rao and stated that the government
cannot use his powers in this matter of 100% which would be considered as
ulra vire i.e it is beyond the power of the governor. The 100% reservation if
given would violate article 16(2) under which there is no discrimination in
appointments under the constitution of India since it directly affects the rights
of other applicants 10 .
The powers which were used by the governor under the schedule 5 of the
Indian Constitution in changing the recruitment rules, 2015 by giving 100%
reservation, under article 309 by stating that the governor can modify the law
related to a particular area, but The Supreme Court stated that this type of
modifications in recruitment processes cannot be done by the governor since
it doesn’t come under his power which is given in para 5(1) of the 5 th schedule
of the constitution 11 .
8 Power of the Governor under 5 th schedule
9 Indira Sawhney vs Union of India
10 Article 16 (2) of the constitution
11 Article 309 of the constitution
The Supreme Court Bench which involved Justice M R Shah and Justice B V
Naharathna stated that if 100% reservation is given in relation to the
appointment of teachers of that particular districts then it would affect the
calibre of the education which would be given to the children of that districts
if 100% reservation in appointment of teachers is allowed. The Supreme
Court of India didn’t want to settle with low quality of education for the
children of that districts by didn’t allowing the meritorious teachers who are
far more qualified than those teachers which would have a better impact on
the students then the teachers appointed by the help of reservations. The
Supreme Court upheld the order of the High Court but made certain changes
in it like instead of making new process in recruitment in the appointment the
state must actually analyse the merit list again and make appointment on the
basis of higher cut off which would ensure deserving candidates getting
appointed and set aside 100% reservation policy 12 .
INFERENCE
In this judgment given by the Supreme Court of India various major inferences were drawn,
firstly it would be the removing of 100% reservation from that notification mentioned in this
judgement which allowed only the local residents belonging to scheduled tribes eligible for
appointments, but the Supreme Court cannot completely disallow it, since it was completely
unconstitutional and is violating various fundamental rights of the other candidates that are
living in those districts and even those candidates living outside the mentioned districts will
have to face discrimination. It infringes their rights mentioned under article 16(2) promising
no discrimination in appointment matters that’s why such a biased order which was passed by
the state was not allowed, but they could give a maximum reservation of 50% under the state
reservation policy.
The second major inference that could be drawn from this judgment is interpreting the extent
of the powers which are given to the governor of that state under 5 th schedule of the Indian
12 Satyajit Kumar vs The State of Jharkhand
constitution which grants special powers to the governor to make some laws regarding the
benefits of the local people , in this case the governor changed the recruitment rules and also
used article 309 of the Indian Constitution in which he can change certain laws belonging to
certain areas , but after this power of the governor was analysed by the Supreme Court it was
found that it does not come under the power of governor. Simply we can say that governor
cannot alter the recruitment rules and this matter wouldn’t come under the authority of
governor.
The third major that could be seen through this judgment is that the Supreme Court realised
the need for quality education for the children belonging to those districts mentioned in the
notification , it would have compromised their educational standards and eventually they
wouldn’t get access to quality education since the knowledge level of the appointed teachers
under complete reservation wouldn’t be that great compared to if they had selected on a fair
merit basis , and the same was the scenario in this judgement, but The Supreme Court knew
the importance of education for the children of the backward areas which would be affected if
they gave 100% to the local residents belonging to scheduled tribes and it would eventually
affect the basic right of education of those children. Thus, the Supreme Court of India passed
the order to reassess the merit list cut off.
UTKARSH RAINA
GURU NANAK DEV UNIVERSITY, AMRITSAR
REFERENCES
1 https://main.sci.gov.in/jonew/cl/2022-08-02/F_J_2_99_36943.pdf
2 Constitution Of India