SUBHASH CHANDRA & ANR. versus DELHI SUBORDINATE SERVICES SELECTION BOARD & ORS.

Citation: [2009] 12 S.C.R. 978 · Decided: 04-08-2009 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.B. SINHA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 6 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[2009) 12 S.C.R. 978 
A 
SUBHASH CHANDRA & ANR. 
I 
v. 
DELHI SUBORDINATE SERVICES SELECTION BOARD 
& ORS. 
(Civil Appeal No. 5092 of 2009) 
B 
AUGUST 4, 2009 
[S.B. SINHA AND CYRIAC JOSEPH, JJ.] 
-t 
CONSTITUTION OF /NOIA, 1950: 
c 
Articles 341, 342, 338, 338A, 14, 15and16-Reservation 
- Grant of benefit - Article 16(4) cannot be made applicable 
for SC or ST in a State or Union Territory who have migrated 
to another State or Union Territory and are not members of 
D SC or ST - By virtue of Article 341, the Presidential orders 
made under Clause (1) thereof acquire an overriding status 
- Presence of Articles 338, 338A, 341, 342 preclude the 
Union and States to legislate upon or frame policies 
concerning the subject of reservation vis-a-vis inclusion of 
E Castes/Tribes - When an amendment or alteration is to be 
brought ab.out by a Parliamentary legislation, the purpose 
cannot be achieved by taking recourse to circular letters - It 
cannot be said that SC/ST notified as such in other States 
would come within the purview of backward classes within the 
F 
meaning of Clause (4) of Article 16 - No recruitment is 
permissible for a backward class against SC/ST quota. 
PRACTICE & PROCEDURE: 
In case of conflict between a decision of a Division Bench 
G of two Judges and a decision of a larger Bench, in particular 
a Constitution Bench, the Division Bench is bound by the 
I 
latter. 
H 
978 
SUBHASH CHANDRA v. DELHI SUBORDINATE 
979 
SERVICES SELECTION BOARD 
DOCTRINES/PRINCIPLES: 
A 
Doctrine of Protective Discrimination - Applicability of. 
Principle of strict scrutiny test or closer scrutiny test or 
higher level of scrutiny - Applicability of. 
B 
In the appeal and the writ petition, the interpretation 
and/or application of the notifications and/or the circulars 
issued by the National Capital Territory of Delhi in terms 
~-
of Clause (1) of Article 341 of the Constitution of India is 
involved. 
c 
In view of the rival contentions of the parties, the 
questions which arose for consideration were: 
(1) Having regard to the decisions of this Court in 
Marri Chandra Shekhar Rao (1990 (3) SCC 130) and Action 
D 
t-
Committee (1994 (5) SCC 244), the specification of a 
particular Caste or Tribe to be a Scheduled Caste and 
Scheduled Tribe being in relation to that State or Union 
Territory, whether a person on his migration to another 
State would carry the same status with him? 
E 
(2) Whether in view of the decisions of this Court in 
Action Committee even where the similar Caste bearing 
the same name having been declared to be the Scheduled 
Caste both in the State to which he originally belonged 
F 
and the State and/or Union Territory to which he has 
migrated would make any difference in view of the 
provisions contained in Article 341 of the Constitution of 
India? 
(3) Whether in view of the decisions of the G 
x 
Constitution Bench of this Court in State of Maharashtra 
vs. Mi/ind & ors. (2001) 1 SCC 4 and E. V. Chinnaia,'1 vs. State 
of A.P. & ors. (2005) 1 sec 394 extension of notification 
even to a migrant would amount to modification and/or 
H 
980 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2009] 12 S.C.R. 
A alteration of the notification which is impermissible in law 
in view of clause (2) of Article 341 and clause (2) of Article 
t 
342 of the Constitution of India? 
(4) Whether having regard to the provisions 
8 contained in Articles 239 and 239AA of the Constitution 
in relation to Union Territory it is permissible for the 
Central Government to direct recruitment to the Union 
Territory Services treating it to be akin to Central Civil 
Services in view of the decisions of this Court in 
Chandigarh Administration (2004) 1 SCC 530 and S. 
C Pushpa (2005) 3 sec 1? 
(5) Whether the ratio laid down by this Court in 
Chandigarh Administration and S. Pushpa having not 
taken into consideration the binding precedents in 
D Constitution Bench in Milind, Chinnaiah and M.C.O. vs. 
Veena & Ors. (2001) 6 sec 571 would constitute binding 
precedents? 
Allowing the appeal and writ petition, the Court 
E 
HELD: 1. When a Caste or a Tribe is designated as a 
Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe, the members 
belonging thereto derive a bunch of benefits. Such 
benefits may not only be confined to admission in 
educational institutions, appointment in State or Central 
F Civil Services, but also for contesting elections to the 
seats reserved for them in the Panchayats and 
Municipalities in lieu of the provisions of 73rd and 14th 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.