In a significant judgment, the Chhattisgarh High Court has ruled that a person belonging to a Scheduled Tribe (ST) community who migrates from one state to another cannot claim reservation benefits in the migrated state, unless it is a case of compulsory migration.
The judgment was delivered by Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas in Writ Petition No. 558 of 2011, titled Suresh Kumar Dagla & Ors vs State of Chhattisgarh & Ors. The case was heard on April 23, 2024 and the order was pronounced on June 26, 2024.
Background of the Case:
The petitioners, Suresh Kumar Dagla, Alok Kumar Dagla and Pushpa Dagla, had migrated from Rajasthan to Chhattisgarh. Suresh Kumar Dagla was granted a petrol pump dealership by Indian Oil Corporation in 1995 under the ST quota in Chhattisgarh. However, based on a complaint, the High Power Caste Scrutiny Committee of Chhattisgarh investigated their tribal status and cancelled their caste certificates in January 2011, also recommending cancellation of the petrol pump dealership.
The petitioners challenged this order in the High Court, claiming they belonged to the Bheel tribe which is recognized as ST in both Rajasthan and Chhattisgarh. They argued that migrants should not lose their ST status and associated benefits upon migration.
Key Legal Issues:
1. Whether a person belonging to an ST in one state can claim reservation benefits after migrating to another state?
2. Whether the court can declare the petitioners as belonging to ST community (Nayak or Bheel castes) in Chhattisgarh?
Court’s Decision:
Justice Vyas dismissed the petition, upholding the Caste Scrutiny Committee’s order. The court made the following key observations:
1. On reservation benefits for migrants:
The court ruled that “a person belonging to a Scheduled Tribe in one State cannot be deemed to be a Scheduled Tribe in relation to any other State to which he migrates for the purpose of employment or education”.
Justice Vyas observed: “From the aforesaid, it is lucid that a person, who migrates from one State to the other does not carry his caste status to the migrating State, even if the same caste is recognized as Scheduled Tribe Community in both States”.
The court explained that the recognition of a caste as ST in a particular state is directly related to the social, economic and educational backwardness faced by that community in that specific state, which may not be the same in another state.
2. On judicial declaration of ST status:
The court held that it cannot issue a writ declaring the petitioners as belonging to ST community, citing Article 341 and 342 of the Constitution. Justice Vyas noted: “The power to include or exclude, amend or alter the Presidential Order is expressly and exclusively conferred on and vested with the Parliament and Courts cannot and should not extend jurisdiction to deal with the question as to whether a particular caste or sub-caste or group or part of tribe is included in any one of the entries mentioned in the Presidential Order”.
3. On the petitioners’ specific case:
The court found that revenue records showed the petitioners’ caste as Nayak, not Bheel. It noted that the petitioners failed to produce evidence before the Caste Scrutiny Committee to prove they belonged to the Bheel tribe.
Lawyers and Parties:
– Petitioners were represented by Senior Advocate K.A. Ansari with Advocates Meera Ansari and Aman Ansari
– State was represented by Gary Mukhopadhyay, Government Advocate
– Indian Oil Corporation was represented by Advocate N.N. Roy
– Intervenors were represented by Senior Advocate Fouzia Mirza with Advocates Navin Shukla, A.K. Prasad, Ratnesh Kumar Agrawal, Sourabh Agrawal and Prabha Sharma
