Full Text
LPA 609/2013 & C.M.No.12814/2013
BISI-IAL BARUI AND ANR
ABHAYANAND
Respondents Appellant
Present:- Mr.K.L.D.S.Vinober,Adv.for the appellants.
Mr.Mukul Talwar, Adv. with Mr.Vipin Singh, Adv. for R-l/GGSIP
University.
Ms.Zubeda Begum,Adv. with Mr.Shikhar Garg, Adv.for R-2/GNCT ofDelhi.
HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MANMOHAN
29.10.2013 Admittedly, the present matters are covered by Division Bench judgmentin LPA 587/2013 ''AnkitRoy Vs. Guru GobindSinsh Indraprastha
University'.
2013:DHC:8531-DB Consequently, the present appeals are dismissed in accordance with thejudgment dated 11^*^ September,2013 passed in LPA No.587/2013.
J\J Vv CHIEF JUSTICE OCTOBER 29,2013 'anb' u MANMOHTtNTT
LPA 609-10/2013 Page2of2.
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
ORDER
ANKITROY .... Appellant
Advocates who appeared in this case;
Forthe Appellant f/ :• Mr Laliet,Kumar alongwitla/Mr-^peepak Vohra.
Forthe Respondent : Mr.Mukul Talwar.alongwitli Mohapatra.
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE VIBHUBAKHRU 1 . w .... JIJDGMENT -
VIBHUBAKHRXh^U^'.":. / .,c
1. The present appedhhaS'he'en filed GMllenging%e commonjudgment delivered by a learned Single Judge ofthis court on 07.08.2013 in W.P.(C) 4748/2013 and other connected writ petitions. The appellant had filed the writ petition being W.P.(C)4748/2013,inter-alia, challenging the action of the respondent university in not considering the appellant as a candidate belonging to a Scheduled Caste for the purposes ofadmission to the B.Tech Programme for the academic session 2013-14 against seats reserved for Delhi. The learned Single Judge has disposed of the writ petition (along with the other matters raising similar issues) by holding that candidates LPA No. 5S7/20I[3] Page I oj21 who did not belong to the communities which were included in the list of Scheduled Castes in relation to Delhi in the Presidential order issued under Article 341(1) of the Constitution of India, would not be entitled for admission to the respondent university against the seats reserved for candidates belonging to the Scheduled Castes from Delhi. Only those candidates who belong to communities included in the schedule to the Presidential order in relation to Delhi would be entitled to be considered for admission against the Delhi reserved category seats provided they are residents ofDelhi.: - IL j\ -/yH
2. The appellant'-'belongs to..Rajbdhshi,,Caste'which%included in the list of Scheduled;C.astes in relation to the State of West.Bengal but is not included in the'list,of Scheduled Castes in relation to'-^Delhi as per the fvl 'Pj Presidential order and, thus, thp •leamedj Single Judge has| upheld the decision of thefrespondent uniyeisity in hbj considering theiappellant for admission to thexolleges-affiliated to the:respondent university against the seats reserved for SC'eategofy for Delhi.'''''' r'
3. The question that arises:for consideratioh.iri'the present appeal is whether a candidate, who belongs to a notified Scheduled Caste in relation to a State other than Delhi, would be entitled to be treated as belonging to a Scheduled Caste for the purpose ofadmission against seats reserved under the Delhi Reserved category for Scheduled Castes.
4. The appellant was born in Delhi on 31.05.1995. The parents ofthe appellant had,a few years prior to his birth, migrated from West Bengal to Delhi. The appellant is stated to belong to Rajbanshi Caste which is a LPA No. 587/2013 Page 2 of21 specified Scheduled Caste in relation to the State of West Bengal as per Part XIX ofthe Constitution (Scheduled Caste) Order, 1950, as amended from time to time. Hov/ever, Rajbanshi is not specified as a Scheduled Caste in relation to Delhi as per the Constitution(Scheduled Castes)(Union Temtories)Order, 1951 issued under Article 341(1)ofthe Constitution of India,as amended from time to time.
5. The appellant is stated to have completed his entire schooling in Delhi. After successfully completing his"Senior Secondaiy schooling, the appellant appeared fbnrtffe cbmm conducted on 19.05.2013, for admis^^ion to the,^BE/B(Tpch Courses,in,yarious colleges and institutions./ The results'ofthe cdmmbri. entrance test/were declared and the appellant was ranked at no.8682ih'the order ofmerit.IThe appellant was required tO submit his preferences ofthe institutes affiliatted with the CET.On 04/0^07.2013,the appfellantwas called upon by tfre respondent university for physical yerificatioh'tand^shbmissiqn^p^^ requisite attested documents. The/dodfrments, submitted* 'by, included a certificate issued by the.©.ffice ofthfrExecutive Magistrate, Model Town, Delhi certifying the appellant:frf'bMongthg;to'the Rajbanshi Caste. The certificate further stated that the same had been issued on the basis of the Scheduled Caste/Tribe Certificate dated 17.07.1976 which had been issued to the father ofthe appellant, who was stated to be the resident of village Bazrapukur, PC Nayabariat, Distt. South Dinajpur, West Bengal, by the ADM,West Dinajpur,Balurghat,WestBengal at the material time.
6. The online counselling was conducted by the respondent university for admission to various colleges/institutions on 24.07.2013 and it is LPA No. 587/2013 Page 3of21 — 8'contended that the appellant was not considered in the Scheduled Castes Category and was not allowed tO'participate in the counselling for the students belonging to Scheduled Castes for the purposes of admission against reservation for the Delhi Reserved category. Subsequently, the appellant received a communication dated 24.07.2013 wherein he was informed that he had been considered by the respondent university as belonging to the category of"All India SC,Gen".
7. It is contended on behalf-Qf4he-appeIk since the appellant had passed the qualifying examinati^^^^^ DelHRand'had also submitted the reservation certificate.issued from>:B»elhi,..„the appellant-had fulfilled the criteria for admifsioh hgainst the'.Delhi reserved categpryAThe appellant has further relied upon the decision ofthe Supreme Courtin^he case of Pushpa & Others v. Sivachanmusdvelu & Others:(2005) 3jSCC 1 and the decision ofthe full Bench of this Court in Deepak Kumar,& Others v. District & Sessions Juds^ DelhiramlDthem: 192(2012)BLT 602(FB) in support of his ^contentibh thhf h uandidatC helph^^ to a specified community listed as^'a* Schedulea Cake/Scheduled in relation to a State would be entitled to the;..beheStyqf.i'^^^^ available for SC/ST category in the Union Territories including Delhi. It was submitted on behalf of the appellant that in the case of S.Pushpa (supra) the Court considered the eligibility ofScheduled Caste candidates who had produced certificates, issued by the Puducherry Administration on the basis of certificates issued by the Governments ofTamil Nadu,Andhra Pradesh and Kerala,for appointment against posts reserved for Scheduled Castes in the services of the Union Territory of Puducherry (then known as LPA No.587/2013 Page 4 of21 I Pondicherry). The Supreme Court upheld the decision ofthe Government of Puducherry to proceed on the Basis that SC/ST candidates who were eligible to be appointed to posts/services under the Central Government against reservation for SC/ST candidates would also be.eligible to be appointed against the posts reserved for SC/ST candidates in the Union Territory of Puducherry. The appellant, thus, contended that since SC candidates in relation to other States were eligible for reservation in respect to employment under the Central Government and Union Temtories and as the appellant admittedly belongs,to a Seheduled Caste,he would be eligible for admission under the DelhiReserved category.,■ // fc "V- •/:A
8. The learnedt-bounsel appearing for the respondent%iniversity has 'V > -n A'V V;i contended that,whilehhe appellant may be considered for admission under • v.- Ji•; i:;: v... ■■ t-. ' / !{ the Delhi General category or under.:the category of Schedulied Castes on all India basis,fthe appellant would not be'eligible to be considered under the Delhi Reseryed category as the appellant could not be;;i'Considered as belonging to a Scheduled. Caste in relation to, Delhi, sirice, the caste of Rajbanshi is not a specifred caste,iri/relation to,Delhi in the Presidential order issued under Article STTj^l^tSfthe^ of India. The learned counsel for the university has also relied on the decision of a Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in the case ofMarri Chandra Shekhar Rao v. The Dean, Seth G.S. Medical Collese & Ors.\ (1993) 3 SCC 130 in support of his contention that a candidate who belongs to a Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe in relation to a State would not be entitled to benefit of reservation on migration to another State where the community to which he belongs is not specified as a Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe in LPA No. 587/2013 Page 5 of2! relation to that State. It is further contended on behalf of the respondent university that the decision of Marri Chandra Shekhar Rao (supra) is good law and the later decision of the Supreme Court in the case of S. Pushpa(supra) is not applicable as the same was delivered on the basis of a circular issued by the Government ofPuducherry by virtue ofwhich any Scheduled Caste candidate thi"oughout the country who was eligible for a post reserved for seiwices under Central Government would also be eligible for employment against post reserved for Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe under the Puducherry Admiriistrati.onrThe Coiirfheld that the policy ofthe Government of Puducherry to extend the' benefit;-,of reservation to candidates belonging td>Scheduled Castes/ScheduleijTribb? in relation to other State was'inoCunconstitutibnal, however, the sarne would not mean that in absence of such pohcies,..a;'.candidate belonging tofk Scheduled Caste/Schedulbd Tribe in relation|:bfanyfSlate would be eligibleforseeking admission in institutions in other Territories (i.e other than'the State in relation to which the'':GOmmunityr'fpf^Me'G'^^ as a Scheduled Caste/Sche<ddlbd'Tfibe). ^ ' ■:f T ■
9. It was further asserted;.by,;thefle^ for the respondent university that it had been the consistent policy of the university to admit only those students against the Delhi Reserved categoiy who belong to Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes in relation to Delhi as per the Presidential order issued under Article 341(1) of the Constitution of India. Our attention was further drawn to the SC certificate submitted by the appellant which clearly stated that the certificate was issued on the basis of an earlier certificate issued to the father of the appellant in 1976 in the State LPA No. 587/2013 Page 6 of21 of West Bengal. The certificate issued to the petitioner could thus only be read as certifying the appellantto belong to a Scheduled Caste in relation to the State ofWestBengal and could not be considered as a certificate issued in Delhi.
10. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length.
11. The controversy in the present case is whether the appellant, who belongs to a community specified as a Scheduled Caste in relation to West Bengal,is entitled to be admitfed|qi?>)B-|re^,'Pr0 being conducted by the respondent ulivefsi^^a^inst seafe f&erved^i|br the Scheduled Castes in the DelhTResdi-ved category., \\
12. We are in agfeement with,the view that the decision oTthe Supreme Court in S.Pushpa(supra)and theid^eisioh ofthe full Bench^pfthis Court 'r {■ "'5 ^.'f in Deepak Kumar & Others (siipra) relevant inasrpuch as both these decisions were concerned(withReservation im.employment and were not concerned with admissibfis td''effi"cM'6Tiai ihstitutions. Inthe case ofS. Pushpa (supra), the subject mattersofTheJ^rh involved a circular dated 06.01.1993 issued by thei0dyernmeht,0^ whichprovided that all orders regarding reservation for Scheduled Castes/ Scheduled Tribes issuedby Department ofPersonnel inrespect of posts/services under the Central Govermnent were also applicable to posts/services under Puducherry Administration. The circular further clarified that any Scheduled Caste candidate throughout the country would be eligible for reseiwed vacancy under the Central Government. It was, ihter-alia, contended on behalf of the writ petitioner in that case that as the Supreme IPA No. 587/2013 Page 7 of21 Court in Marri Chandra Shekhar Rao(supra), had held thatthe benefit of reservation would not be available to candidates who have migrated from other States,the benefit ofreservation in employment with the Puducherry Administration could not be extended to those candidates who were from Schedules Castes/Scheduled Tribes in relation to other States. It was contended on behalfofthe writ petitioners that ifthe communities to which the candidates belonged were not listed in the Schedule to the relevant Presidential order issued under Article 341(1) or Article 342(1) of the Constitution ofIndia in relation.to theTJnion Territory ofPuducherry,the benefit of reseiwation fof'jerhployment in 'Puduchep^ would not be available to those3candidates. This contention was',nOt accepted by the Supreme Court.andTf was heldThat the earlier decision4h:71%m Chandra Shekhar Rao(supra) would not be'applicable ifa Union Territory adopted II f'^"5- Y' ' • a policy whereby the benefit ofrelervhtabri|was also extendedfr)candidates belonging to Scheduled Castes and Schedufed Tribes who had migrated to the Union Territory from other.States Supreme Court held that a policy ofthe Govemrnerit of"the Union Territbiy^^extend the benefit of reservation to candidate's belonging46 Schedules Castes/Schedules Tribes from other States would not fall foul'ofArticle 16(4)ofthe Constitution of India even though the communities of the migrant candidates were not mentioned in the Schedule to the Presidential Order issued for that Union Territory.
13. In our view,the decision ofthe Supreme Court in S.Pushpa(supra) is not an authority for the proposition that a Government of a Union Territory is bound to extend reservation in admissions to educational institutions for candidates belonging to Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes LPA No. 587/2013 Page8of21 _ ^: even ifthey are not listed in the Schedule to the Presidential Order issued in relation to that Union Tendtory. This is also clear from paragraph 21 of the judgment in S.Pushpa (supra), the relevant extract of which is reproduced below: "... If a State or Union Territory makes a provision where under the benefit of reservation is extended only to such Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes which are recognised as such in relation to that State or Union Territory then such a provision would be perfectly valid...."
14. It is also relevant,,to''State-that'para^^^ the circular dated 06.01.1993 which was the subject matter ofdiscussionin.S-PMsZ/pa(supra) also expressly provided as under:-■ * " " X, •S. 'X -I- "3. Howe'yei m the case ■'bT-bthenbenefits like'sbholarships, admission to educationahinstitutions, etc., the benefits''should be confmed to the Scheduled Castes of this Union Territory." Thus, in any event, decision of the Supreme Court|in S.Pushpa 'V '.U - ^. i/ (supra) would riot have any.application to issuesprejating tqbreservation in admission to educatioriat-mstitutions. ' ^
15. The decision of the, fulflSfnch of Mis.Court in Deepak Kumar & Others (supra) is also a case of reservatiori'in relation to seiwices and even though a reference to reservation for the purpose of educational institutions has been made in paragraph 2 of the said decision, the judgment has been rendered in the context of reseiwations in employment andnot in relation to admissions to educational institutions. In our view, the learned Single Judge has rightly held that the decision did not address the issue involved in the writ petitions including the petitionpreferred by appellant. LPA No. 587/2013 Page 9 of21
16. Article 15 of the Constitution of India prohibits discrimination on the grounds ofreligion,race, caste,sex or place ofbirth. However,Article 15(4) provides that nothing in Article 15 or in Article 29(2) of the Constitution of India shall prevent the State for making any special provisions for advancement of any socially and educationally backward classes of citizens or for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. Whilst equal protection of laws and non discrimination are the part of the basic structure of the Constitution of India, reservations in admissions to educational institutions forsocially and-qducatibhall^ backward classes and Schedules Castes/Sch'edulesrTribes is perrhrsSlfel|Hn %rder to ensure real equality of opportunity,' considering the disadvantageous position of candidates belonging to these categories: Sabyasachi Muldiarji, CJ delivering the judgment of the Constitutibh Bench in the case of Marri ChandraShekhar Rao(supra)observed;'"as under:- ( "9. It appears that<S;Gheduled;Gastesjand.Sbhe Tribes in some States'had to luffer'the;kdciai'^disadyahtag©s,arid did not have the facililies for development and;gfo,>^kit'ri necessary in order to,make/,them equal;m those' areas where they have so suffered arid'are,In the/state/ofunderdevelopment to have reservations or proteetioff in their favour so that they can compete on equal terms with the more advantageous or developed sections of the community. Extreme social and economic backwardness arising out of traditional practices of untouchability is normally considered as criterion for including a community in the list of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. The social conditions of a caste, however, varies from State to State and it will not be proper to generalise any caste or any tribe as a Scheduled Tribe or Scheduled Caste for the whole country." LP/l No. 587./20I[3] Page IOof2! 1'7. Providing special treatrnent to the under-privileged is a ndcessary facet of equality as treating un-equals as equal would also be a:form of discrimination. The founding fathers being conscious of this included special provisions relating to certain classes including Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes in the Constitution. Part XVI ofthe Constitution of India (Articles 330 to 342) contain the special provisions relating to certain classes including Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. Article 330 and Article 332 ofthe Constitution ofIndia provide for reservations ofseats, for Scheduled Castes and;Scheduled Tri^^^^ in the House ofthe People and the LegiHatiyb.Assembhes^ofthd State Article 335 ofthe Constitutk^ ofIndia provides that in maMng appointments to the services and posts in connection withfhe affairs ofrthe,Union or ofa State, the claims of members of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes would be taken into consideration. Article 338 and Articlef338A of the Constitution 6f India provides'-for'establishment of rthe National Commission for'rthe Scheduled Uustes and'the•National Commission for the Scheduled Tribes'.which are, intemlm'/ c]kkt^ed '':w^^ the duty to investigate and monitor all^ThhllbtPfelhting to'the safeguards, under the Constitution ofIndia and otherTaws, provided for the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes respectively. Article 341 of the Constitution of India is relevant and is reproduced hereunder: "341. Scheduled Castes - (1) The President may with respect to any State or Union territory, and where it is a State, after consultation with the Governor thereof, by public notification,specify the castes,races or tribes or parts ofor groups within castes, races or tribes which shall for the LPA No. 587/2013 Page 11 of21 purposes of this Constitution be deemed to be Scheduled Castes in relation to that State or Union territory, as the case may be. (2)Parliament may by lawdnclude in or exclude from the list of Scheduled Castes specified in a notification issued under clause(1)any caste, race or tribe or part of or group within any caste, race or tribe, but save as aforesaid a notification issued under the said clause shall not be varied by any subsequent notification." A plain reading of Article 341(1)indicates that the President has the power to specify the castes,■races'br tribes as Scheduled Castes in relation to the Union Territory"^ahd Statesrtlt'isf thus, apparenfthat a caste, race or tribe specified by thqfPresident would be deemed to beunscheduled Caste only in relation to the State or the UnionTerritory in respect of which that ■ f ■; { I i ' • caste, race or tribe has been specified':J4rt|under-privileged community in h C) ^ one State whichrequires assistance qivsafeguards may not beybonsidered as an under-privileged communityin andthbh^S^tewd^Qiay not be inneed of any assistance in th^^atev^TThe power o£:.the {Pfesideht under Article 341(1) and Article ""^42(,f)Uof:The -.C^ declaring certain communities/races/castes/tribes or groups•ias'"Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes cannot be read without reference to the State in relation to which the declaration is so made. The entire scheme of providing additional benefit to Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes is premised on their members being as under-privileged in a particular State or Union Territory.
18. The affirmative action of providing reservation in favour of certain communities is based on the premise that the said communities are under privileged in that State. If a person belonging to Scheduled Caste/ LPA No. 587/2013 Page 12 of21 Scheduled Tribe migrates to another State he may not suffer the disadvantages that have been suffered by communities who are included as Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes- in that State and thus, may not require the aid of reservation. Inclusion of such migrant candidates for;benefit of reservation in favour ofthe under-privileged communities would surely be at the cost of candidates belonging to Scheduled Tribes and Scheduled Castes in relation to that State.
19. In the case of Marri ChandriFSlmkhar^Rao (supra), the Supreme Court considered the case ofa"sttideht:belonging'to atScheduled Tribe who sought benefits ofreservations in a'Stateiother than iq. relation to which his community wasideemed to be a Scheduled Tribe. In tha%:ase, the writ petitioner was born m Gouda community in the State of An^hra Pradesh. Gouda community is listed in the,:Schedule;to the Presidential Order issued under Article 3i;:42(l) ofthe Constitution,pflndia in relation to,the.State of Andhra Pradeshbhowever,.the said coniiTiunity does-not find mention in the Schedule in relation to Maharashtra. The father.of the^writ petitioner in that casejoined the services ofa GovernmentofIndia Undertaking and was posted at Mumbai (then Icnown as'Bombay). The writ petitioner, thus, came to reside in Mumbai and completed his Secondary and Higher education in Mumbai. On clearing his 12^^ standard examination from the Maharashtra State Board ofSecondaiy and Higher Secondaiy Examination, the writ petitioner applied for admission to the medical colleges run by the Municipal Corporation and sought admission against seats reserved for Scheduled Tribes. The benefit of reservation was denied to the writ petitioner as he was not considered as belonging to a Scheduled Tribe in LPA No. 587/2013 Page 13 of2! ^ ~: relation to the State ofMaharashtra.The Supreme Courtinterpreted Article 341 and 342 ofthe Constitution ofIndia and held as under "13....It, however, appears to us that the expression "for the purposes of this Constitution" in Article 341 as well as;in Article 342 do imply that the Scheduled Caste and the Scheduled Tribes so specified would be entitled to enjoy all the constitutional rights that are enjoyable by all the citizens as such. Constitutional right, e.g., it has been argued that right to migration or right to move from one part to another is a right given to all to Scheduled Castes or Tribes and to nonscheduled castes or tribeh. But.when a.Scheduled Caste or Tribe migrates,there is nohihiibition-in but when he migrates, he does not'and cannot,carry an^:speeial rights or privileges attributed to him or granted to him in the,original State specified for that State or area or part thereof.jJfthatright is not given,in the migrated StateuTdpss not interfere \vith his constitutional right of equality prfoTltaigration or of carrying on his trade, business or professiph.ilSleither Article 14,1116, 19 nor Article 21 is denuded by migmtii|n buthe mustenjoythose rights iric- accordance with thetMw.Jf they are otherwise followed 'in the place where he migrates,. There should be harmonious,construction, harmonious in.the sense,that both parts or all parts qfa-constitutional proyision'should be so read that one part does not bbcomdihugatQryjto the other or denuded to the other but all"parfs=4hhsfbe,reaMh'&^ in which there are used." '-
20. The Supreme Court in Marri Chandra Shekhar Rao (supra) was also guided by the view ofDr B.R. Ambedkar expressed in the Constituent Assembly debate,in response to a question raised by Mr Jai Pal Singh.The relevant extractfrom the reply by Dr. Ambedkar is as under:- "21 He asked me another question and it was this. Supposing a member of a Scheduled Tribe living in a tribal LPA No. 587/2013 Page 14 of21 n area migrates to another part ofthe territory ofIndia, which is outside both the scheduled area and the tribal area, will he be able to claim from the local government, within whose jurisdiction he may be residing, the same privileges which he would be entitled to when he is residing within the scheduled area or within the tribal area? It is a difficult question for meto answer. If that matter is agitated in quarters where a decision on a matter like this would lie, we would certainly be able to give some answer to the question in the form ofsome clause in this Constitution. But,so far as the present Constitution stands, a member of a Scheduled Tribe going outside the Scheduled area or tribal area would certainly not,be entitled to carry with him the privileges that he is.entitled to when he is residing in a scheduled area or'a tribararea.- So fan asT cariK.see, it will be practicably impossible'to enfbmflfhe provisions thqt apply to tribal areasyOr scheduled;areas,xih}ar|as^^^^^ tKan'tbose which are covered byfhem.... y ' V.?. In Marrii]Chandra ShekMir Rao (supra), the Supreme Court concluded that|:the writ petitionerjwould not be entitled to be}admitted to the medical college on the basis/thathe b^ to a Scheduled Tribe in the State ofAndhra Tradesh ' Tt- • 'v-CTy... T., ty-,v'
21. In view of the decisiqn'3T the Constitution''Beh^ in the case of Marri Chandra Shekhar Rao (supra), the benefit of admission against reserved seats would not be available to the appellant who belongs to a Scheduled Caste in relation to the State of West Bengal, unless the policy of extending the benefit of reservation to Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes in relation to other States is adopted by the Government ofNCT of Delhi in admissions to educational institutions. The appellant has not placed any policy of the Government of NCT of Delhi which enjoins the respondent university to grant admissions to students belonging to SC/ST LPA No.587/2013 Page 15 of21 category in relation to other States, against seats reserved for SC/ST candidates ofDelhi. ^
22. The other contention that needs to be considered is whether the appellant was entitled to be admitted against a Delhi Reserved category in teims. of the admission brochure and the clarification issued by the respondent university.
23. The Admission brochure issued by the respondent university disclosed its reservation polidy for 201^2^13 as under;- •A.,/' ^ ^ lb,, "The ReservAtion^Pblicy,for[3];lifei\University;'/ScnQols, Indira Gandhi In^ti^pfpf Technology Govt InshMtes'^and Self Financing(Colleges/Institutions affiliated with thisiUniversity, other thafi inihbrity institution, for the academic sessioh,2012- 13 was a^ under:- h For University Schools,IGIT and Government Institutions For Institutions lo( ated Outside Delhi in NCR Self Financing Institutes/ Colleges in NCT of Delhi ( i ) 85% of the Sanctioned Intake shall be allocated foi Delhi Region wherein reservation of seats was as under.•Admissidh.will be made on all 1ndia.:BasissanTrgsj[3].r.yati0n ohseatshvas as under,sc-151^-tUA:" >85%'vof the total sanctioned ^intake, except, the management 'seatstallocated for Delhi students whefeia.reservation of seats was "hs under SC-15% SO-17% ST-7.5% Def-5% ST-1% Def-5% PH-3% Def-5% PH-3% PH-3% OBC-27% 15% of the Sanctioned Intake shall be allocated for Outside Delhi Regions wherein reservation of seats will be as 15% of the total sanctioned intake, except the management seats allocated for the Outside Delhi Students wherein LPA No. 587/2013 Page 16of21 undCI reservation ofseats was as under SC-15% 80-15% ST-7.5% ST-7.5% Def-5% Def-5% PH-3% PH-3% • Reservation in OBC Category is not applicable for Master's Level and Post Graduate Diploma programmes. Note 1. The candidate seeking admission under reserved categories/ classes has to mandatorily produce the caste/chtegoiy;, certificate in.hrs/her name at the time,^of:^Gdunsellingv^The certifidafe^in name of veitlfeL'of the parent'"(Mothei/Father), is not // acceptable and the candidate will hot'.be/entitled • even for provisional admission. • " i,;...v> -. -yv. !■]' K / ■"> V'
2. H The reservation-ceftific^e should be issued from the respecdyei, siare/region in which the V reservation ii'pflimed^'^g. in.case any cahdidate claims for the seat-reserved' fobE)SC/DS:L/DOBC " pategoiy/'then he/she has to".hring' S^/ST/OBC ceitificate issued by'/G oTNCT of Delhi and also should;have"passed his/her qualifying exam fromDelhi Schbol/ColTege.
3. 10% of the total seats (as per GET Code) will be allocated as management quota seats as per policy ofGovt. ofNCTofDelhi."
24. The above reservation policy was for the academic session 2012-13 and a further note was provided in the Admission Brochure to the effect that the reservation policy for the Academic Session 2013-14 was under the consideration of the Government of NCT of Delhi and would be notified LPA No. 587/20]3 Page 17 of21 subsequently. The appellant has stated that there is no changb in the reservation policy in relation to SC/ST. The learned counsel for the appellant has also drawn our attention to the clarification issued regarding admissions in the reserved categories which clarifies that admissiohs in the reserved categories would be permissible ifthe following conditions were fulfilled:- "1. If Qualifying examination is passed from Delhi and Reservation certificate...,, is.sued from Delhi for SC/ST/OBC categbnes,,4hen"adfhission is permissible under DelhfTiesefvddfcategbryC;I'f ^.. n
2. If Qualifying exarninationrts passed fforiiOutside Delhi and Reservation "certificate'issued from.anywhere in India,- including Delhi;y.fof%SC/ST categdries, then adinisslbn is permissible uirder.Outside Delhi Reserved category. „ 'f' jj
3. If.Qualifying examiriatipnQs-pass from Delhi and Reseiwation certificatebissuert ifrom.Outside Delhi for SC/ST categories theh^udmi|siqn'i^^ only under Delhi'General catbgBfgr #
4. For Institutes'in'i^CR.:Region-(^^ All India basis:- If Qualifying.■.examination is passed from anywhere India and Reservation certificate is issued from anywhere in India, then admission is permissible under Reserved category, irrespective of the region from where certificate has been issued."
25. The reservation policy read along with the clarification contained in the Admission Brochure clearly indicates that in order to be considered for admission against seats reserved for Delhi Reserved categoiy, the student should have passed his/her qualifying examination from Delhi school/college and should bring the SC/ST/OBC Certificate from the LPA No. 587/2013 Page 18 of21 Government of NCT of Delhi. It is contended on behalf ofthe appellant that he has fulfilled both these conditions since his certificate ofScheduled Caste has been issued in Delhi. We are unable to accept this contention since the certificate issued to the appellant itselfdiscloses that it is issued to the appellant based on an earlier certificate issued to his father in the State of West Bengal. This certificate only certifies that appellant belongs to the Rajbanshi Caste which is listed in the Presidential Order as a Scheduled Caste in relation to the State ofWestBengal. The said certificate cannot be construed as certifying the;:appellant-;as=;.belong^^^^^ a Scheduled Caste in relation to Delhi. The cohditiori that the resefvatipm certificate must be issued by the Goydrnment ofNCT ofDelhi would,ihripur view,not include a certificate issdedy^'hich certifies a candidate to belohg tdv a Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe in relation to another State and which is issued solely on the' basis of an earlier certificate issued by the concerned Authority of that State. Thus,:%fouf view^ the appellant would not be entitled to admis^pn aghih^ffthd^peiirReler^ similar view has also been taken%yfhc'Supreme Courtinthe case dfy4ctf6>w Committee on Issue ofCaste Certificate Scheduled Tributes in the State ofMaharashtra and Anr.w. Union ofIndia andAm.'.(1994) 5 see 244. In this case, the Supreme Court considered the instructions issued by the Ministry of Home Affairs, penuitting the issuance of Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe certificates by prescribed authority to persons who had migrated from other States and examined the effect of such certificates and held as under:- LPA No.587/2013 Page 19of21 _^- I "8, In course of time persons belonging to Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes who had migrated from one State to another in search ofemployment or for education purposes a,nd the like, experienced great difficulty in obtaining Caste/Tribe Certificates from the State from which they had migrated.'To remove this difficulty experienced by them the earlier instructions contained in the letter of 22-3-1977, and the subsequent letter of 29-3-1982, were modified, in that, the prescribed authority ofa State/Union Territory was permitted to issue the Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe Certificate to a person who had migrated-froth another.-State on production ofa genuine certificate frssued hoH His.fajher by... the prescribed authority of the" State-of the father's" origin exbept where the prescribed authpfity consideihdfa-detailed enqfrir^, necessary through thd' S|& of ofigih beforefrssiie of ceftMcate. It was further stated'That the certificate^ will be issued irfespieptive of whetherfthe Caste/Tribe in question is scheduled ofr not in relation fo the State/Union Territory to which the person has migrated;: Of course, this. facilif|s|did not alter the Scheduled Caste/Tribe status of the-person iin relation,to the one or the other StatekThexrevfeed form'ofthe certificate was/circulated. Further, it Was^'ciarified that a Scheduled Caste/Tribe person who has migrated from the'State of origin,to some other State for the purpose ofeducation, employraeht,etc., will be deeiiied to be Scheduled Caste/Tribe ofthe State of his origin only and will be entitled to derive benefits from that State and not from the State to which he had migrated. By this clarificatory order forwarded to Chief Secretaries of all States/Union Territories, the only facility extended was that the prescribed authority of the State/Union Territory to which a person had migrated was permitted to issue the certificate to the migrant on production of the genuine certificate issued to his father by the prescribed authority of the State of the father's origin provided that the prescribed authority could always enquire into the matter LPA No.587/2013 Page 20of2! V - J X X through the State of origin if he entertained any doubt: The certificate to be so issued would be in relation to the State/Union Territoiy from which the person.concerned had' migrated and not in relation to the State/Union.Territory to which he had migrated. Therefore, the migrant would,mot be entitled to derive benefits in the State to which he had migrated on the strength ofsuch a certificate...."
26. In view of the above discussion, we do not find any merit in the present appeal. We agree with the view taken by the learned Single.Judge in the impugned judgment and dismiss;the,present appeal and vacate the interim order. Accordingly,all applications stand.disposed of. The parties are left to bear their owmcosts. ■if ', frv.VIBHUBAKHRU, J ■ ■BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J SEPTEMBER 11, 2013 RK/MK LPA No. 5S7/20I[3] Pagc 21 of2i