Summary:
New Delhi, Aug 2 (PTI) The Supreme Court Tuesday quashed the Jharkhand government"s 2016 decision to grant 100 percent reservation to locals of 13 scheduled areas in public jobs and upheld a High Court decision that had termed the government decision discriminatory and impermissible.
The top court said "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".
A bench of Justices MR Shah and BV Nagarathana said, "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 July 14, 2016 as unconstitutional and ultra vires Articles 14, 16(2), 16(3) and 35(ai) of the Constitution of India"".
In 2016, the Jharkhand government had invited applications for appointment to the posts of Trained Graduate Teacher (TGT) in government secondary schools, with 100 per cent reservation for local candidates/residents of Thirteen Scheduled Areas in the State.
On April 11, 2007, 13 districts in the state had been declared Scheduled Areas/ Districts including Ranchi, Lohardaga, Gumla, Simdega, Latehar, East Singhbhum, West Singhbhum, Saraikela Kharsawan, Sahebganj, Dumka, Pakur, Jamtara, Palamu District"s Rabda and Bakoriya Panchayats of Satbarwa Block and Godda District"s Sunderpahari and Boarijor Blocks.
The top court said it was in complete agreement with the view taken by the High Court and present appeals filed by the affected candidates.
The top court relied on the constitution bench judgement of 2020 related to 100 per cent quota in jobs in Andhra Pradesh and said it was held that the power conferred on the governor to deal with the scheduled areas is not meant to prevail over the Constitution.
It said, "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".
In its 107-page verdict, the bench said it has been held that when the Fifth Schedule confers power on the governor, it is not meant to be 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.