<p>A state government cannot make 100 per cent reservation for local candidates for a scheduled area, as it would violate the fundamental right to non-discrimination in public employment, the Supreme Court ruled in a significant judgment on Tuesday.</p>.<p>“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,” state a bench of Justices M R Shah and B V Nagarathna.</p>.<p>Making 100 per cent reservation for local residents of the scheduled area/districts (reservation on the basis of resident) concerned is “ultra vires to Article 35, read with Article 16(3) of the Constitution,” the court observed.</p>.<p>Justice Shah, who authored the judgment on behalf of the bench, said: “100% reservation provided for the local residents of the concerned scheduled districts / areas only would be violative of Article 16(2) of the Constitution and affecting rights of the other candidates / citizens of non-scheduled areas / districts guaranteed under Part III of the Constitution.”</p>.<p>The ruling came as the top court quashed a 2016 notification, issued by the Jharkhand government, to provide for 100 per cent reservation to local residents in district cadre Class III and Class IV posts, in the 13 scheduled districts of the state.</p>.<p>The bench also said the quality of education of the school-going children could be compromised by giving 100 per cent reservation in favour of teachers from the same districts, and prohibiting the other meritorious candidates for the appointment.</p>.<p>“If the candidates belonging to other areas (non-scheduled areas/districts) are given an opportunity to impart education (who may be more meritorious than the candidates belonging to the scheduled areas/ districts) than it will be more beneficial to the students belonging to the scheduled areas and their quality of the education shall certainly improve,” the court stated in its ruling.</p>.<p>According to the apex court, for basic education, it could be helpful to students at primary level to be taught in their own tribal language. “But the same principle may not be applicable when the question is of providing education at higher level viz above 5th standard,” the bench added.</p>.<p>The top court’s 107-page judgment came on a batch of appeals filed by the Jharkhand government, and some individuals, against the High Court ruling which had quashed the notification.</p>.<p>The top court also noted that as per Article 16(3) read with Article 35, local domicile reservation can be provided only through a law enacted by the Parliament, and the state legislature had no power to do so. The court also held that the notification was void under Article 13 for violating fundamental rights and declared to be ultra vires.</p>.<p>The state government, for its part, claimed 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 to protect the interests of the residents in the scheduled districts.</p>.<p>The top court also disagreed with the High Court’s direction to conduct fresh recruitment. Instead, the apex court used its extraordinary power under Article 142 to tell the state government to revise the merit list of the candidates</p>
<p>A state government cannot make 100 per cent reservation for local candidates for a scheduled area, as it would violate the fundamental right to non-discrimination in public employment, the Supreme Court ruled in a significant judgment on Tuesday.</p>.<p>“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,” state a bench of Justices M R Shah and B V Nagarathna.</p>.<p>Making 100 per cent reservation for local residents of the scheduled area/districts (reservation on the basis of resident) concerned is “ultra vires to Article 35, read with Article 16(3) of the Constitution,” the court observed.</p>.<p>Justice Shah, who authored the judgment on behalf of the bench, said: “100% reservation provided for the local residents of the concerned scheduled districts / areas only would be violative of Article 16(2) of the Constitution and affecting rights of the other candidates / citizens of non-scheduled areas / districts guaranteed under Part III of the Constitution.”</p>.<p>The ruling came as the top court quashed a 2016 notification, issued by the Jharkhand government, to provide for 100 per cent reservation to local residents in district cadre Class III and Class IV posts, in the 13 scheduled districts of the state.</p>.<p>The bench also said the quality of education of the school-going children could be compromised by giving 100 per cent reservation in favour of teachers from the same districts, and prohibiting the other meritorious candidates for the appointment.</p>.<p>“If the candidates belonging to other areas (non-scheduled areas/districts) are given an opportunity to impart education (who may be more meritorious than the candidates belonging to the scheduled areas/ districts) than it will be more beneficial to the students belonging to the scheduled areas and their quality of the education shall certainly improve,” the court stated in its ruling.</p>.<p>According to the apex court, for basic education, it could be helpful to students at primary level to be taught in their own tribal language. “But the same principle may not be applicable when the question is of providing education at higher level viz above 5th standard,” the bench added.</p>.<p>The top court’s 107-page judgment came on a batch of appeals filed by the Jharkhand government, and some individuals, against the High Court ruling which had quashed the notification.</p>.<p>The top court also noted that as per Article 16(3) read with Article 35, local domicile reservation can be provided only through a law enacted by the Parliament, and the state legislature had no power to do so. The court also held that the notification was void under Article 13 for violating fundamental rights and declared to be ultra vires.</p>.<p>The state government, for its part, claimed 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 to protect the interests of the residents in the scheduled districts.</p>.<p>The top court also disagreed with the High Court’s direction to conduct fresh recruitment. Instead, the apex court used its extraordinary power under Article 142 to tell the state government to revise the merit list of the candidates</p>
