S. PUSHPA AND ORS. versus SIVACHANMUGAVELU AND ORS.

Citation: [2005] 1 S.C.R. 1158 · Decided: 11-02-2005 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: R.C. LAHOTI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Cited by 2 judgment(s) · cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
S. PUSHPA AND ORS. 
\I. 
SIVACHANMUGAVELU AND ORS. 
FEBRUARY 11, 2005 
B 
[R.C. LAHOTI, CJ., K.G. BALAKRISHNAN AND G.P. MATHUR, JJ.] 
Service law: 
Constitution of India, 1950; Articles 16(4), 227, 230, 231, 239, 239A, 
C 239B, 240, 309, 330, 331, 332, 333 and 341(1) & (2): 
D 
Appointment of Selection Grade Teachers in Pondicherry-Selection of 
migrant Scheduled Caste (SC) persons against the quota reserved for SC in 
Union territory of Pondicherry-Challenge to-Declared illegal and invalid 
by CAT-On appeal, Held: Reservation benefit in employment in UT extended 
lo migrant SC/ST candidates after consultation and confirmation from the 
Central Government-Reservation policy of the Central Government 
consistently followed by the Union Territory-No infraction of constitutional 
provision found in the policy-Hence, Selection made in pursuance of the 
reservation policy does not suffer from any legal infirmity-The view taken by 
E the Tribunal to the contrary cannot be sustained, hence set asid~overnment 
of Union Territories Act, 1963-General Clauses Act, 1897; Section 3(8)-
F 
Pondicherry (Administration) Act, 1962-Section 3. 
· Equality of opportunity in employment-Presidential order for reservation 
of SC/ST-Effect of-Discussed. 
Respondents approached the Central Administrative Tribunal 
challenging the selection of migrant Scheduled Casie (SC) candidates for 
the post of teachers as against quota reserved for SC persons in the Union 
Territory of Pondicherry. CAT held the selection as illegal and invalid and 
directed the authorities concerned to review the !;election process with 
G regard to the reservation quota. Hence the present appeals. 
H 
It was contended by the appellants that the Government of India has, 
from time to time, issued Circulars and Government Orders clearly 
mentioning that migrant SC persons are eligible for appointment against 
posts reserved for SC persons in the Union Territory and in the absence 
1158 
\ 
( 
S. PUS HP Av. SIV ACHANMUGAVELU 
1159 
of any statutory enactment or r.ules made in exercise of powers conferred A 
under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution, these Circulars or 
Government Orders are binding upon the Government of Pondicherry; 
that in the matter of providing reservation in favour of any backward class 
of citizens within the meaning of Article 16(4) of the Constitution, it is 
open to the Govt. of Union Territory to apply any policy, including the B 
one whereunder migrant SC persons are also given the benefit of 
reservation and it is not open to the respondents to challenge the said 
reservation policy; and that since right from inception the Government 
of Pondicherry has been following a uniform reservation policy allowing 
reservation to migrant SC persons, the same cannot be held to be illegal 
or contrary to any constitutional provisions. 
Respondents submitted that in view of clear language in Article 
341(1) of the Constitution, only such castes which have been mentioned 
c 
in the schedule appended to the Presidential Order of 1964, directing 
reservation of SC persons shall be deemed to be Scheduled Castes for the 
purpose of appointment against reserved quota and migrant SC persons D 
are not eligible therefor; that the fact that a Union territory is administered 
by the President can make no difference so far as the appointment against 
reserved quota is concerned as the posts in question are posts under the 
Government of Pondicherry, a Union Territory and cannot be deemed to 
be posts under the Central Government. 
Allowing the appeals, the Court 
HELD:l.l. The power to make regulations by the President is fairly 
large as he can repeal or amend any Act made by Parliament or any other 
E 
law which is applicable to the territory and shall have the same force and F 
effect as an Act of Parliament. (1169-G] 
1.2. The provisions under Articles 227, 230 and 231 of the 
Constitution show that the position of a Union territory is different from 
that of a State. The Administrator of the Union Territory and his Council 
of Ministers act under the general control of and are under an obligation G 
to comply with any particular direction issued by the President. Further, 
the administrator while acting under the scope of the authority given to 
him under Article 239 of the Constitution would be the Central 
Government. (1170-B; 1171-C( 
1.3. Earlier, Government of India, the General Administration H 
1160 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2005) I S.C.R.
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.