REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4038 OF 2022
Satyajit Kumar & Ors. …Appellant(s)
Versus
The State of Jharkhand & Ors. …Respondent(s)
With 
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4039 OF 2022
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4040 OF 2022
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4041 OF 2022
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4042 OF 2022
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4043 OF 2022
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4044 OF 2022
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4045 OF 2022
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4046 OF 2022
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4047 OF 2022
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4048 OF 2022
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4049 OF 2022
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4050 OF 2022
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4079 OF 2022
J U D G M E N T
M.R. SHAH, J.
1.0. Feeling   aggrieved   and   dissatisfied   with   the   impugned
common judgment and order dated 21.09.2020 passed
in  Writ  Petition   No.1387  of  2017  and  other  allied  writ
Page   1  of   107

petitions   and   connected   applications,   by   which,   the
High   Court   has   allowed   said   writ   petitions   and   has
observed,   held   and   declared   that   the   Notification
No.5938   and   the   Order   No.5939   dated   14.07.2016
issued   by   the   State   of   Jharkhand   and   Advertisement
No.21   of   2016   dated   28.12.2016   modified   by   the
Advertisement   No.21   of   2016   published   on
04.12.2017,   by   the   State   Government   through
Department   of   Personnel,   Administrative   Reforms   and
Rajbhasha   inviting   application   for   appointment   to   the
posts of Trained Graduate Teacher in the Government
Secondary   Schools   to   the   extent   of   making   100%
reservation   for   the   local   candidates   /   residents   of
Thirteen Scheduled Areas in the State of Jharkhand as
illegal,   ultra   vires   and   unconstitutional   and
consequently   has   quashed   the   appointments   of   the
Trained   Graduate   Teachers   made   pursuant   to   the
aforesaid   advertisement,   in   the   Scheduled   Districts
relating   to   the   local   residents   of   those   Districts,   the
original   respondents   –   candidates   belonging   to   the
Thirteen   Scheduled   Districts   have   preferred   present
Page   2  of   107

appeals.
2.0. Civil   Appeal   No.4043   of   2022   has   been   preferred   by
the   petitioners   who   were   not   party   before   the   High
Court   challenging   the   action   of   the   State   Government
in not appointing  them. It is the case on behalf of the
petitioners   that   the   State   Government   has
misinterpreted   the   judgment   and   order   passed   by   the
High Court passed in Writ Petition No.1387 of 2017. It
is   their   case   that   the   dispute   before   the   High   Court
was   with   regard   to   the   appointment   of   the   Trained
Graduate   Teachers   and   advertisement   Notification
No.21   of   2016.   However,   so   far   as   petitioners   are
concerned,   according   to   them,   they   are   eligible
applicants of the advertisement nos.1 of 2017 and 2 of
2017   for   the   post   of   Lower   Divisional   Clerks
(Collectorate   cadre)   –   District   Level   Post   Panchayat
Secretary­   District   Level   Posts   and   Lower   Divisional
Clerks­   State   Level   Post,   State   Stenographer   –   State
Level Post and in no manner concerned with the issue
agitated before the High Court. It is the case on behalf
Page   3  of   107

of   the   petitioners   that   they   are   awaiting   the   final
results   with   respect   to   the   aforesaid   posts   and   have
also   undergone   document   verification   procedure
carried   out   by   the   Jharkhand   Staff   Selection
Committee in the year 2019.
2.1. Civil   Appeal   No.4048   of   2022   has   been   preferred   by
the   State   of   Jharkhand   challenging   the   order   passed
by the High Court dated 4.3.2022 passed in Contempt
Case   No.   109   of   2021.   It   is   to   be   noted   that   Civil
Appeal   No.4048   of   2022   is   with   respect   to   the
candidates   belonging   to   the   Non­Scheduled   Districts
who   earlier   filed   writ   petitions   before   the   High   Court
and   the   High   Court   directed   to   issue   appointments
orders   to   the   candidates   belonging   to   the   Non­
Scheduled Districts. It is required to  be noted  that   by
the   interim   order   passed   by   the   High   Court   further
contempt proceedings before the High Court have been
stayed.
2.2. Civil   Appeal   No.4050   of   2022   has   been   preferred   by
Page   4  of   107

the   candidates   belonging   to   the   Scheduled   Districts
and who applied as a Trained Teacher pursuant to the
aforesaid   advertisement   and   who   are   not   appointed
after   interim   order   passed   by   the   High   Court   dated
18.09.2019.
3.0. Facts  leading  to  the   present  appeals in   a  nutshell  are
as under:
3.1. Pursuant   to   the   Presidential   Notification   dated
11.04.2007 13 Districts in the State of Jharkhand had
been   declared   as   Scheduled   Areas.     That   the   said
Notification   had   been   issued   in   exercise   of   powers
conferred   by   the   sub­paragraph   (2)   of   paragraph   6   of
the   Fifth   Schedule   to   the   Constitution   of   India.
Pursuant to the said Notification, following Districts in
the   State   of   Jharkhand   had   been   declared   as
Scheduled Areas / Districts.
1. Ranchi District.
2. Lohardagga District.
3. Gumla District.
4. Simdega District.
5. Latehar District.
6. East­Singhbhum District.
Page   5  of   107

7. West­Singhbhum District.
8. Saraikela­ Kharsawan District.
9. Sahebganj District.
10. Dumka District.
11. Pakur District.
12. Jamtara District.
13. Palamu District­ Rabda and Bakoriya Panchayats
of Satbarwa Block.
14. Godda   District­   Sunderpahari   and   Boarijor
Blocks. 
(hereinafter referred to as the “Scheduled Areas”).
3.2. That   the   State   Government   issued   “Jharkhand
Government   (Recruitment   of   Teachers   and   Non­
Teaching   Staff   in   Secondary   Schools   &   their   Service
and   Condition)   Rules,   2015   by   means   of   which   the
conditions / qualifications for appointment of teachers
had been prescribed, vide Notification dated 1.3.2016.
That   pursuant   to   the   order   passed   by   the   High   Court
in   Writ   Petition   (PIL)   No.   4806   of   2016,   vide   Circular
dated   18.04.2016   the   State   Government   prescribed
definition of “Local Resident of Jharkhand”. As per the
said   Circular,   the   Local   Resident   of   Jharkhand   would
Page   6  of   107

be   deemed  such  Indian   Citizens   who   would   fulfill  any
one condition out of the following …….
“(i). he   would   have   been   residing   within   the
geographical   limits   of   the   State   of   Jharkhand   and
either his own name or name of his forefather would
have   been   lying   recorded   in   Survey   Khata.   In   the
cases   of   landless,   he   would   be   identified   by   the
concerning   Gram   Sabha   which   would   be   based   on
language, culture & traditions prevailing in the State
of Jharkhand.
(ii)would have been residing within the geographical
limits   of   the   State   of   Jharkhand   for   the     past   30
years   or   more   due   to   any   trade,   employment   and
other   reasons   and   would   have   earned   immovable
property   or   such   person   has   wife/husband   /child
and affirm commitment to stay in Jharkhand State.
(iii)   would   have   been   appointed   &   working
officer/employee   under   the   Government   of   State   of
Jharkhand   /   institutions   being   run/recognized   by
the State Government, Corporation etc.  Or   has
wife/husband /child and affirm commitment to stay
in Jharkhand state.
(iv)Officer/employee   of   the   Government   of   India,
working in the  State   of   Jharkhand   or   have   188
wife/husband /child and affirm  commitment   to
stay in Jharkhand state.
(v)Person   appointed   at   any   constitutional   or
statutory posts in  the   State   of   Jharkhand   or   have
wife/husband /child and affirm  commitment   to
stay in Jharkhand state.
(vi) Such person who would have born in the State of
Jharkhand  and  completed his whole education upto
Matriculation   or   its   equivalent   level   from   the
recognized   institutions   established   in   the   state   of
Jharkhand   &   affirm   commitment   to   stay   in
Jharkhand state.”
3.3. That   thereafter,   the   State   Government   came   out   with
Page   7  of   107

Notification   No.   5938   and   Order   No.   5939   dated
14.7.2016   directing   that   in   Thirteen   Scheduled
Districts   of   the   State,   the   local   residents   of   the
concerned Districts (Thirteen Scheduled Districts) only
shall  be  eligible to  be appointed   on  the   District  Cadre
Class   III   and   Class   IV   posts,   for   a   period   of   ten   (10)
years from the date of publication of the Notification. It
appears   that   said   order   had   been   issued   by   the
Governor of Jharkhand in exercise of powers conferred
under   sub­paragraph(1)   of   paragraph   5   of   the   Fifth
Schedule   of   the   Constitution   of   India.   In   the   order
dated 14.07.2016 it is observed as under:
“ And   whereas,   the   scheduled   Area   in   the   State   are
characterised   by   low   Human   Development   Indices,
backwardness,   remoteness   poverty   and   whereas
the   social   indicators   of   the   Scheduled   Areas   are   on
an   average,   inferior   to   the   average   of   social
indicators   in   the   State   due   to   uneven   topography,
lack   of   water   resources,   loss   in   canopy   coverage   of
forest and uncontrolled rapid industrialization;
And   whereas,   recognizing   the   factors   identified
above, the Tribal Advisory Council of Jharkhand has
recommended   issuing   of   a   notification   by   the
Governor   for   suspension   of   eligibility   conditions   as
enshrined   in   various   appointment   rules   for   the
appointment  of   class   3  and  class  4   posts  at  district
level   for   a   period   of   10   years   in   the   13   districts
namely­   Sahebganj,   Pakur,   (Dumka,   Jamtara,
Latehar,   Ranchi,   Khunti,   Gumla,   Lohardagga
simdega,   East   Singhbhum,   West   Singhbhum   and
Page   8  of   107

Sraikela­kharsawan  for  appointment   of   cent­percent
District  level  class  ­3  and   class­4   posts  by  the  local
residents of the district concerned;
And Whereas, the Governor of Jharkhand in order to
improve   the   quality   of   people   in   the   Scheduled
Areas,   by   providing   additional   opportunities   of
employment,   in   favour   of   the   local   residents   of
Scheduled Areas .”
3.4. That thereafter, further order came to be published on
11.11.2016   specifically   making   it   clear   that   in
compliance   of   Notification   No.5938   dated   14.07.2016,
local residents of concerned Districts only  are deemed
eligible for  appointment  in the vacant post of District­
Level Class III and Class IV in 13 notified Districts out
of 24 Districts of the State and appointment of people
from other Districts/ other States is not permissible in
these   Districts.   Meaning   thereby,   it   was   made   clear
that   the   candidate   belonging   to   the   Non­Scheduled
Districts cannot  participate in the process of selection
in the Scheduled Districts.
3.5. That   pursuant   to   the   advertisement   no.   21   of   2016
published on 28.12.2016 as modified by advertisement
dated 4.2.2017 which  was issued in pursuance of the
Notification   No.5938   dated   14.07.2016,   applications
Page   9  of   107

were   invited   for   filling   up   17,784   Trained   Graduate
Teachers out of which 13,398 posts (75% posts of total
advertised   posts)   were   to   be   filled   up   by   direct
recruitment and remaining  25% posts i.e., 4386 posts
were   reserved   for   primary   teachers.   The   said
advertisement   was   issued   through   Jharkhand   State
Staff   Selection   Commission   (hereinafter   referred   to   as
the “JSSC”). In the advertisement in para 5(iii), it was
stated   that   so   far   as   vacancies   in   the   Scheduled
Districts   and   State   are   concerned,   only   the   local
residents of those Scheduled Districts shall be entitled
to   apply.     As   per   the   para   5(i)   of   the   advertisement,   a
candidate could apply against the vacancy in only one
District of his / her choice. At this stage, it is required
to   be   noted   that   in   all   8423   posts   were   advertised   for
filling   up   the   vacancies   in   the   Thirteen   Scheduled
Districts   in   the   State,   whereas   9149   posts   were
advertised for the remaining non­scheduled districts in
the State.
3.6. Several   candidates   applied   for   the   posts   and
Page   10  of   107

undergone   the   selection   process.   The   results   were
published   and   process   of   appointments   were   initiated
by the State Government. Candidates belonging to the
Non­Scheduled   Districts   who   were   prevented   making
application for the vacancy in the Scheduled Districts,
preferred writ petition before the High Court by way of
present   writ   petition   challenging   the     constitutional
validity   of   the   Notification   and   order   issued   by   the
State   Government   bearing   Notification   No.   5938   and
Order   No.5939   dated   14.07.2016,   by   which,   only   the
local   residents   of   the   concerned   Scheduled   Districts
were   made   eligible   for   appointment   on   the   District
Cadre   Class   III   and   Class   IV   posts   for   a   period   of   10
years.   The   original   writ   petitioners­   candidates
belonging   to   the   Non­Scheduled   Candidates   also
challenged   the   subsequent   Advertisement   No.21   of
2016, as modified by the Advertisement No.21 of 2016,
inviting   applications   for   appointment   to   the   posts   of
Trained   Graduate   Teacher   in   the   Government
Secondary Schools  more particularly, para 5(iii) of the
said advertisement by which, it was stated that the so
Page   11  of   107

far as vacancies in the Scheduled Districts of the State
are   concerned,   only   the   local   residents     of   those
Scheduled Districts shall be eligible to apply.
3.7. By   order   dated   21.2.2019   the   Division   Bench   of   the
High   Court   directed   that   the   notices   be   published   in
the   Daily   Newspaper   having   wide   circulation   about
institutions   of   writ   petitions   so   that   the   person
interested   may   intervene   in   the   writ   petitions.
Pursuant   to   such   notices,   several   interlocutory
applications / intervener applications came to be filed,
which came to be allowed by the High Court.
Taking   into   consideration   the   question   of
Constitutional   importance   involved   in   these   matters,
by   order   dated   18.09.2019   the   Division   Bench   of   the
High   Court   referred   the   matter   to   be   decided   by   the
Larger   Bench.   By   the   same   order   dated   18.09.2019,
the   High   Court   stayed   further   implementation   and
operation   of   the   impugned   Notification   No.5938   and
Order   No.5939   dated   14.7.2016,   subject   to   the
Page   12  of   107

appointments already made, if any. 
3.8 It was the case on behalf of the original writ petitioners
– candidates belonging to the Non­Scheduled Districts
that   the   aforesaid   Notification   issued   in   exercise   of
powers   conferred   in   para   5(i)   of   the   Fifth   Schedule   of
the Constitution of India is violative of Articles 14 & 16
of   the   Constitution   of   India.   Article   13(2)   of   the
Constitution   of   India   was   also   pressed   into   service.
Heavy   reliance   was   placed   on   Article   16(2)   of   the
Constitution of India. It was submitted on behalf of the
original   writ   petitioners   that   in   the   garb   of   the   non­
obstante   clause   in   para   5(i)   of   the   Fifth   Scheduled   of
the   Constitution,   the   Governor   cannot   infringe   and   /
or affect fundamental rights guaranteed under Part III
of the Constitution and that there cannot be any 100%
reservation,   so   as   to   make   only   residents   of   a
particular   area   to   be   eligible   for   appointment   to   a
public   post.   Heavy   reliance   was   placed   on   the
decisions   of   this   Court   in   the   case   of   Kailash   Chand
Sharma   Vs.   State   of   Rajasthan   &   Ors .   reported   in
Page   13  of   107

(2002)   6   SCC   562;   A.V.S   Narsimha   Rao   &   Ors   Vs.
State of Andhra Pradesh & Anr.  reported in  (1969) 1
SCC 839;   Dr. Pradeep Jain & Ors Vs. Union of India
& Ors.   reported in ( 1984) 3 SCC 654;   Rajesh Kumar
Gupta   &   Ors.   Vs.   State   of   UP   &   Ors.   reported   in
(2005) 5 SCC 172;   State of Orissa & Ors. Vs. Sudhir
Kumar   Bishwal   &   Ors.   reported   in   1994   Supp   (3)
SCC   245   and   Indra   Sawhney   &   Ors.   Vs.   Union   of
India   &  Ors.   reported  in   1992   Supp   (3)   SCC   217 ,   in
support   of   their   submissions   that   there   cannot   be
100%   reservation   for   the   local   residents   and   such
100%   reservation   for   the   local   residents   and   /   or
reservations   on   the   basis   of   residence   shall   be   hit   by
Article   16   (3)   of   the   Constitution   of   India.   On   the
constitutional validity of the Notification making 100%
reservation for the local residents in exercise of powers
under para 5 of the Fifth Schedule of the Constitution
of   India,   heavy   reliance   was   placed   on   recent
Constitutional Bench decision of this Court in the case
of   Chebrolu   Leela   Prasad   Rao   &   Ors   Vs.   State   of
Page   14  of   107

A.P. & Ors  reported in  (2021) 11 SCC 401 . 
4.0. On   the   other   hand,   it   was   the   case   on   behalf   of   the
State as well as successful candidates belonging to the
Scheduled Districts that the Notification making 100%
reservation   for   local   residents   of   the   Scheduled   Areas
was / is absolutely within the scope, ambit and powers
of   the   Governor   in   exercise   of   para   5   of   the   Fifth
Schedule to the Constitution of India.
4.1. It   was   submitted   that   for   the   upliftment   of   local
residents belonging to the Scheduled Areas / Districts
such   a   reservation   is   permissible.   It   was   submitted
that   the   object   and   purpose   of   declaring   Scheduled
Districts / Areas under Fifth Schedule is to uplift and
for   the   betterment   of   local   residents   of   the   Scheduled
Areas. It was also contended on behalf of the State and
successful   candidates   belonging   to   the   Scheduled
Areas/   Districts   that   special   powers   under   the   Fifth
Schedule are not subject to restriction under Article 16
of the Constitution of India. Heavy reliance was placed
Page   15  of   107

on the  non­obstante  clause. It was submitted that para
5(i)   of   the   Fifth   Schedule   of   the   Constitution   of   India
begins   with   the   words   “notwithstanding   contained
anything   in   this   Constitution”.   It   was   further
submitted   that   even   the   Governor   may   by   public
notification direct that any particular Act of Parliament
shall not apply to a Scheduled Area; powers conferred
on   the   Governor   with   respect   to   Scheduled   Areas   are
special   powers   and   therefore,   such   powers   are   not
subject   to   any   of   the   restrictions   contained   in   Article
16 and / or any other provisions of the Constitution of
India.
5.0. By   the   impugned   common   judgment   and   order   and
following   the   decision   of   the   Constitutional   Bench   of
this   Court   in   the   case   of   Chebrolu   Leela   Prasad   Rao
(supra) ,   the   High   Court   has   declared   the   aforesaid
Notification   and   the   aforesaid   Advertisement
unconstitutional   and   /   or   ultra   vires,   to   the   extent
making 100% reservation for the local residents of the
Scheduled   Areas.   By   the   impugned   judgment   and
Page   16  of   107

order,   the   High   Court   has   also   held   that   the
Notification and the Order are violative of Article 16(3)
and 35(a) of the Constitution of India, as such powers
are   vested   only   in   the   Parliament   and   not   with   the
State Legislature. By the impugned common judgment
and order, the High Court has also quashed para 5(iii)
of   the   Advertisement   No.21   of   2016   published   on
28.12.2016   as   modified   by   the   advertisement   dated
4.2.2017   to   the   extent   it   provided   that   as   against   the
vacant   posts   of   Trained   Graduate   Teacher   in   the
Scheduled   Districts,   only   the   local   residents   of   those
Scheduled   District   can   apply.   In   the   result,   the   High
Court has quashed all the appointments of the Trained
Graduate   Teachers   made   pursuant   to   the   aforesaid
advertisement,   in   the   Scheduled   Districts   relating   to
the   local   residents   of   those   Districts   only.   That   the
High Court has further directed that all the 8423 posts
of   Trained   Graduate   Teacher   in   the   Government
Secondary   Schools   in   the   Scheduled   Districts   of   the
State   of   Jharkhand,   be   advertised   afresh   and   fresh
selection   process   be   undertaken   in   accordance   with
Page   17  of   107

law. The High Court also further clarified that all those
candidates   who   were   eligible   to   apply   in   response   to
the   Advertisement   No.21   of   2016,   shall   be   entitled   to
apply in the fresh selection process, irrespective of any
barrier, if any, as to their age.
The High Court has also made it abundantly clear
that   by   the   ad­interim   order   dated   18.09.2019,
selection process was never stayed by the Court in the
Non­Scheduled   Districts   and   there   was   no   stay   for
appointments   on   any   post   in   the   Non­Scheduled
Districts.   According   to   the   High   Court   by   impugned
common   judgment   and   order   has   allowed   all   the   writ
petitions accordingly. 
5.1. Feeling   aggrieved   and   dissatisfied   with   the   impugned
common judgment and order passed by the High Court
of   Jharkhand   declaring   Notification   No.   5938   and
Order   No.5939   dated   14.07.2016   as   unconstitutional
and ultra vires to Articles 14, 16(2), 16(3) and 35(a­i) of
the   Constitution   of   India   and     consequently   quashing
Page   18  of   107

para   5(iii)   of   the   Advertisement   No.   21   of   2016
published   on   28.12.2016   as   modified   by   the
Advertisement   dated   4.2.2017   to   the   extent   of
providing   100%   reservation   for   the   local   residents   of
the   Thirteen   Scheduled   Districts   only,   selected
candidates   belonging   to   the   Scheduled   Areas   –   local
residents of Scheduled Areas / Districts have preferred
the present Appeals.
6.0. Dr.   Rajeev   Dhavan,   Shri   Vikas   Singh,   Shri   R.
Venkataramani,   Ms.   Vibha   Datta   Makhija,   learned
Senior   Advocates   have   appeared   on   behalf   of   the
successful   candidates   belonging   to   the   Scheduled
Areas.  We have  heard Shri  Kapil  Sibal  and Shri  Sunil
Kumar   learned   Senior   Advocates   appearing   on   behalf
of  the  State   of  Jharkhand.  We  have  heard  Shri  Ranjit
Kumar   and   Shri   Gopal   Sankaranarayanan,   learned
Senior Advocates appearing on behalf of the contesting
respondents   –   original   petitioners   –   candidates
belonging   to   the   Non­Scheduled   Areas   /   Districts.   We
have   also   heard   Shri   Ajit   Kumar   Sinha,   Shri   Colin
Page   19  of   107

Gonsalves   and   Shri   Pallav   Shishodia,   learned   Senior
Advocates   appearing   on   behalf   of   the   other   respective
parties/ interveners.
7.0. Shri   R.   Venkataramani,   learned   Senior   Advocate
appearing   on   behalf   of   some   of   the   successful
candidates   belonging   to   the   Scheduled   Districts   /
Areas   has   vehemently   submitted   that   while   passing
the   impugned   common   judgment   and   order   the   High
Court has not properly appreciated and considered the
object   and   purpose   of   declaration   of   the   Scheduled
Areas   in   exercise   of   powers   conferred   under   Fifth
Schedule   and   the   object   and   purpose   conferring
special   powers   to   the   Governor   under   para   5   of   the
Fifth Schedule to the Constitution of India.
7.1. It   is   further   submitted   that   the   High   Court   has   also
not   properly   appreciated   and   considered   the   reasons
for   which   the   Notification   and   the   order   dated
14.07.2016 was issued by the Governor of State.
Page   20  of   107

7.2. It   is   further   submitted   that   the   Notification   and   the
order   dated   14.07.2016   shows   that   the   Scheduled
Districts   in   the   State   of   Jharkhand   are   characterized
by   low   human   development   indices,   backwardness,
remoteness,   poverty   and   they   are   on   an   average
inferior   to   the   social   indicators   in   the   State   due   to
uneven   topography,   lack   of   water   resources,   loss   in
canopy   average   of   forest   and   uncontrolled   rapid
industrialization.   That   due   to   the   aforesaid   grounds
and   the   reasons,   the   Notification   had   to   be   issued   by
the   Governor   for   protecting   the   interest   of   the
residents of the Scheduled Districts.
7.3. Taking   us   to   the   Article   29,   38   and   46   of   the
Constitution   of   India   and   reliance   being   placed   on
Article   244   of   the   Constitution   of   India   which   deals
with the administration of Scheduled Areas and Tribal
Areas   to   which   Fifth   Schedule   of   the   Constitution
applies,   it   is   vehemently   submitted   that   the   said
administration has to take special care of the interests
of   minorities   and   the   people   belonging   to   the
Page   21  of   107

Scheduled   Castes,   Scheduled   Tribes   and   the   weaker
sections of the society, and to protect them from social
injustice   and   all   forms   of   exploitation.   It   is   submitted
that   therefore,   Notification   /   order   dated   14.07.2016
issued by the Governor in exercise of powers conferred
under   para   5(i)   of   the   Fifth   Scheduled   of   the
Constitution   of   India   which   was   issued   to   protect   the
interest   of   local   residents   of   the   Scheduled   Areas   and
for their upliftment, ought not to have been held to be
ultra   vires   and   /   or   unconstitutional   by   the   High
Court.   It   is   submitted   that   the   impugned   judgment
and   order   passed   by   the   High   Court   has   the   effect   of
taking   away   special   rights   conferred   on   the   Governor,
conferred under para 5 of the of the Fifth Schedule of
the Constitution of India.
7.4. It   is   further   submitted   that   Article   16(2)   of   the
Constitution   of   India   prohibits   discrimination   on   the
grounds   “only”   of   religion,   race,   caste,   sex,   descent,
place   of   birth,   residence   and   these   expressions   are
preceded   by   the   word   “only”   and   followed   by   the
Page   22  of   107

expression   “or   any   of   them”   which   play   a   very
important   role.   It   is   submitted   by   Shri     R.
Venkataramani, learned Senior Advocate appearing on
behalf   of   petitioners   that   successful   candidates
belonged   to   the   Scheduled   Area,   though   it   was   the
contention   on   behalf   of   the   original   petitioners   that
discrimination   is   prohibited   on   the   ground   mentioned
in Article 16(2) and 16(3) and if any protective action is
required   to   be   taken   under   Articles   29,   38   and   46   of
the  Constitution   of  India  the  same  is  taken  on   any   or
more   of   those   grounds,   in   combination   with   other
factors   and   Article   16(2)   of   the   Constitution   of   India
shall   not   be   attracted,   even   if   it     results   in   some
discrimination to the other set of citizens.
7.5 Shri   R.   Venkataramani,   learned   Senior   Advocate
appearing   on   behalf   of   petitioners   has   further
submitted   that   Governor   of   the   State   is   fully
competent under para 5(i) of the Fifth Schedule of the
Constitution   of   India   to   issue   notification   making
reservation in favour of the residents of the Scheduled
Page   23  of   107

Districts   in   order   to   secure   justice,   social,   economic
and political to the residents suffering variously in the
backdrop   of   the   conditions   mentioned   in   the
Notification.  It is urged  that  under  Article 15(4)  of the
Constitution of India, the State is empowered to make
special  provisions  for   the  advancement  of  any  socially
and   educationally   backward   classes   of   citizens   or   for
Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, as such there
is no violation of Articles 14 & 16 of the Constitution of
India.   It   is   further   submitted   by   Shri   R.
Venkataramani,   learned   Senior   Advocate   that   the
Scheduled   Area   cannot   be   equated   with   the   non­
scheduled   areas.   It   is   submitted   that   taking   into
consideration   various   factors,   it   was   found   necessary
to   protect   the   interests   of   the   residents   of   the
Scheduled Districts.
7.6. It is submitted that  it would  be of immense benefit to
the school going children in the Scheduled Districts, if
they   are   taught   in   their   own   tribal   language   by   the
local teachers, rather  than  by  outsiders, who may  not
Page   24  of   107

be well conversant with the local language. It is urged
that   orders   under   challenge   before   the   High   Court   as
such   did   not   suffer   from   any   denial   of   equality   of
opportunity and / or discriminatory. Further the order
under challenge before the High Court only distributes
equality   of   opportunity   in   terms   of   felt   needs   of   the
Scheduled   Areas   of   the   State.   Hence,   there   can  be   no
objection   to   reasonable   provisions   being   made   as
regards   Scheduled   Areas.   It   is   submitted   that   the
Constitution   permits   discrimination,   albeit   on
reasonable grounds.
7.7. It is further submitted that the scope of Article 16(3) is
confined   to   inter   State   borders   and   that   it   has   no
application   to   areas   within   a   State.   In   this   context,
reliance   is   placed   on   the   decision   of   this   Court   in   the
case   of   AVS   Narasimha   Rao   and   Ors.   Vs.   The   State
of A.P.  reported in  (1970) 1 SCR 115 .
7.8. It is submitted that the Governor has the power under
para   1   of   the   Fifth   Schedule   to   enact   any   measure   in
Page   25  of   107

the   interests   of   the   Scheduled   Areas.   No   dichotomy
between   the   powers   under   paras   1   and   2   of   the   Fifth
Schedule   can   be   suggested.   That   they   are   only
different facets of the plenary  powers of the Governor.
It   is   submitted   that   the   powers   conferred   on   the
Governor under para 5(1) and (2) of the Fifth Schedule
are plenary and exclusive powers. It is submitted that
therefore  the Governor   can  also stay  the  law  made  by
the   Parliament   and   hence   the   said   powers   are   not
subject   to   restrictions   under   Article   16   of   the
Constitution of India. 
Shri   R.   Venkataramani,   learned   Senior   Advocate
appearing   on   behalf   of   petitioners   has   further
submitted   that   as   such   the   decision   of   this   Court   in
the case of   Chebrolu Leela Prasad Rao (supra)   is not
applicable at all to the facts of the case on hand. That
in   the   case   of   Chebrolu   Leela   Prasad   Rao   (supra)
there   was   100%   preference   /   reservation   in   favour   of
only of Scheduled Tribes of the respective local areas of
Andhra   Pradesh,   where   schools   are   located.   It   is
Page   26  of   107

submitted   that   in   the   instant   case   there   is   no   such
reservation   only   in   favour   of   the   Scheduled   Tribes   of
the Scheduled Areas. He has pointed out the following
distinguishing   features   in   support   of   his   submissions
that the decision of this Court in the case of  Chebrolu
Leela Prasad Rao (supra)  shall not be made applicable
to the present cases.
I. All   candidates   whether   in   Scheduled   or   non­
Scheduled Areas can apply only in the District.
II. Only   Class   III   and   IV   posts   at   the   District   Level
included.   In   the   context   of   fitness   of   transfers   of
employees, generally this Court has observed that
Class   III   and   Class   IV   posts   stand   on   a   separate
footing.
III. All   candidates   within   the   districts,   whether
SC/ST/BC or OBC, General can apply.
IV. The provisions were experimental i.e., to last only
for   10   years.   (legislative   experiments   in   Socio­
economic matters will receive judicial deference.
7.9. Relying upon the decisions of this Court in the case of
Ram   Kripal   Bhagat   Vs.   State   of   Bihar   reported   in
(1970)   3   SCR   233   and   in   the   case   of   Puranlal
Page   27  of   107

Lakhanpal   Vs.   President   of   India   reported   in   AIR
1961   SC   1519 ,   it   is   prayed   that   there   is   need   for
reconsideration of the decision in the case of  Chebrolu
Leela Prasad Rao (supra) .
7.10. It   is   further   submitted   that   in   the   present   case,   the
Notification   issued   by   the   Governor,   impugned   before
the High Court are not hit by Articles 14 and 16 of the
Constitution of India and as such do not fall within the
scope   of   the   judgment   of   this   Court   in   the   case   of
Chebrolu   Leela   Prasad   Rao   (supra) .   It   is   submitted
that   the   notifications   can   be   traced   both   to   Article
16(3)   and   the   Fifth   Schedule   of   the   Constitution.   It   is
further   submitted   that   under   the   Fifth   Schedule   the
Governor is placed at par with the parliament and the
State legislature, and the power exercisable thereunder
is   plenary   legislative   power,   and   not   subordinate   to
any other legislative power. The power of the Governor
not   to  apply  a  parliamentary  law  to   a  Scheduled  Area
would   place   her/   him   at   par   with   the   power   of   the
Parliament   available   under   Article   16(3)   of   the
Page   28  of   107

Constitution.
7.11. It   is   further   submitted   that   that   the   Governor   can   do
what   the  Parliament  can   do  under  Article  16(3)  of  the
Constitution, and thus enact in respect of requirement
of   residence,   as   a   measure   of   taking   care   of   the
interests   of   schools   in   scheduled   areas.   It   is   further
submitted   that   since   Article   16(3)   is   an   exception   to
Article   16(1)   any   reasonable   provision   as   regards
residence requirement will be saved. It does not matter
that   the   law   is   made   either   by   Parliament   or   the
Governor.   The   power   of   the   Governor   not   to   apply   a
parliamentary   law   includes   the   power   to   do   what   the
parliament can otherwise do.
7.12. It   is   further   submitted   that   it   is   open   to   treat   the
notifications   not   as   the   amending   instruments   of   the
Rules   made   by   the   State   of   Jharkhand   under   Article
309   relating   to   appointment   of   teaching   staff.   It   is
submitted   that   in   the   case   of   Chebrolu   Leela   Prasad
Rao   (supra)   answering   question   2(b)   raised   therein   it
was   opined   that   since   Rules   made   under   Article   309
are   not   Parliamentary   or   State   law   they   cannot   be
Page   29  of   107

amended under para 5 of the Fifth Schedule.
7.13. It   is   further   submitted   that   Fifth   Schedule   is   a
Constitution   within   the   constitution,   (See
Kesavananda   Bharati   Vs.   State   of   Kerala   (1973)   4
SCC 225 ) which suggests that the paramount interest
of the scheduled areas and their development in ways
that   would   suit   the   areas   (for   instance   lands,   forests,
mineral   wealth,   etc.   and   the   need   to   ensure   against
exploitation)   will   always   inform   the   Governor   in   the
exercise of powers under the Fifth Schedule.
7.14. It   is   further   submitted   that   the   rules   relating   to
appointment themselves provide that no candidate can
apply  to posts in more than  one district, and that  the
cadres are district level and not State level cadres. The
Notification   only   extends   the   same   restriction   of   one
district   application   to   Scheduled   Areas,   keeping   in
view   the   interests   of   all   Scheduled   Areas.   There   is   no
inter   se   discrimination   amongst   eligible   candidates
residing   within   the   Scheduled   Areas.   All   principles   of
Page   30  of   107

reservation   to   other   categories   of   candidates   are   also
applicable.
7.15. It is submitted that this court has saved domicile as a
reasonable   principle   as   regards   access   to   education
and   public   employment.   The   safeguards   enacted   in
Article   371   D,   for   example,   are   one   proximate
illustration.
7.16. It is submitted that the impugned Notifications are not
discriminatory.   They   do   not   look   only   at   the   place   of
residence   as   the   factor,   relevant   for   appointment   to
schools   in   Scheduled   Areas.   They   treat   residence   as
one   among   other   factors,   namely   the   best   way   of
promoting  the interests of schools  in Scheduled Areas
as a prominent or dominant aspect. In the balancing of
the   interests   of   schools   in   Scheduled   Areas   and   the
right   of   all   in   all   districts   to   be   considered   for
appointment   as   teachers,   if   the   factor   of   residence
within   the   scheduled   district   will   tip   in   favour   of   the
schools' interest, then the emphasis in Article 16(2) on
Page   31  of   107

non­discrimination "'only»' on grounds of residence will
yield to Article 16(3).
7.17. It is submitted that Article 16(2) of the Constitution of
India prohibits discrimination on the grounds "only" of
religion,   race,   caste,   sex,   descent,   place   of   birth,
residence,   and   these   expressions   are   preceded   by   the
word   "only"   and   followed   by   the   expression   "or   any   of
them',   which   are   significant.   In   the   present   case,   the
cumulative factors of low human development indices,
backwardness,   remoteness,   poverty,   inferiority   in   the
social   indicators   in   the   State   due   to   uneven
topography,   lack   of   water   resources,   loss   in   canopy
average   of   forest   and   uncontrolled   rapid
industrialization have been taken into consideration.
7.18. It is further submitted that the Governor of the State is
fully competent under paragraph 5(1) of Fifth Schedule
of   the   Constitution   of   India   to   issue   the   notification
making   reservation   in   favour   of   the   residents   of   the
scheduled   districts   in   order   to   secure   justice­   social,
Page   32  of   107

economic   and   political,   to   the   residents   suffering
variously in the backdrop of the conditions mentioned
in the notification.
7.19. In   the   alternative,   it   is   prayed   that   even   if   the
Notification   /   Order   impugned   before   the   High   Court
are held to be unconstitutional and / or ultra vires, in
that   case,   as   done   by   this   Court   in   the   case   of
Chebrolu Leela Prasad Rao (supra)   the appointments
already made in the Scheduled Areas be saved even by
exercising power under Article 142 of the Constitution
of   India.   It   is   submitted   that   in   many   cases   those
candidates who have been appointed in the Scheduled
Areas, were either working in the non­Scheduled Areas
or for getting appointment in the Non­Scheduled Areas
they   had   left   their   jobs   as   they   were   getting
appointment in their own Districts. It is submitted that
equities are also in their favour. It is further submitted
that   even   appointment   of   the   petitioners   may   not   be
disturbed   when   large   number   of   posts   are   still   lying
vacant   in   the   State   of   Jharkhand   and   under   the
Page   33  of   107

provision   of   Right   to   Education   Act,   fundamental
rights are available to the residents of the area to have
access   to   education   and   further   it   is   duty   cast   upon
the State to provide education.
7.20.   It   is   submitted   that   the   High   Court   has   erred   in   not
protecting the appointments already made by narrowly
applying   the   decision   in   the   case   of   Chebrolu   Leela
Prasad   Rao   (supra) .   One   of   the   factors   for   protecting
appointments made to public services in pursuance of
open   competition   and   fair   opportunity,   even   though
falling foul of any other legal factor, will be whether the
appointments   are   vitiated   by   the   candidature’s   fraud
or   benefit,   and   whether   the   appointees   will   lose   on
various   counts.   It   is   a   matter   of   record   that   a   large
number   of   appointees   have   left   their   previous   jobs.
Even   in   the   case   of   Chebrolu   Leela   Prasad   Rao
(supra) , persons appointed as recently as in 2020 have
been   protected.     Reliance   is   also   placed   on   the
judgement   in   Dr.   Jaishri   Laxmanrao   Patil   Vs.   Chief
Page   34  of   107

Minister   2021   SCC   Online   SC   362   for   protection
granted by Court to the appointments already made.
8.0. Dr. Rajeev Dhavan, learned Senior Advocate appearing
on   behalf   of   some   of   the   petitioners   –   candidates
belonging   to   the   Scheduled   Districts   /   Areas   has
elaborately   made   submission   on   the   use   of   the   word
“only” under Article 15(1) and 16(2) of the Constitution
of India.
8.1. It   is   submitted   by   Dr.   Rajeev   Dhavan,   learned   Senior
Advocate appearing for the some of the petitioners that
use of the word “only” in Article 15(1) and 16(2) of the
Constitution   of   India   would   suggest   that   any   of   the
prohibited   classification   “including   caste”   cannot   be
taken as the basis of the classification  unless there is
some   wider   constitutional   or   public   purpose   and   the
classification   has   a   nexus   to   and   subserves   that
purpose.   Reliance   is   placed   on   the   decision   of   this
Court in the case of  Kailash Chandra Sharma (supra)
(para 14) on the prohibitions in Article 16(2). That it is
Page   35  of   107

observed in the said decision that prohibitory mandate
under   Article   16(2)   is   not   attracted   if   the   alleged
discrimination   is   on   grounds   not   merely   related   to
residence   but   the   factum   of   residence   is   only   taken
into account in addition to other relevant factors.
8.2. Reliance is also placed on the decision of this Court in
the case of  P. Rajendran Vs. State of Madras  reported
in   (1968)   2   SCR   786.   It  is  submitted  that  as  held  by
this   Court   in   the   aforesaid   decision   if   the   reservation
in question, had been based only on caste and had not
taken   into   account   the   social   and   educational
backwardness   of   the   caste   in   question,   it   would   be
violative   of   Article   15(1)   but   it   must   not   be   forgotten
that a caste can also refer  to a class of citizens and if
the   caste   as   a   whole   is   socially   and   educationally
backward, reservation can be made in favour of such a
caste   on   the   ground   that   such   a   caste   is   socially   and
educationally   backward   class   within   the   meaning   of
Article 15(4).
Page   36  of   107

8.3. Dr.   Rajeev   Dhavan,   learned   Senior   Advocate   has   also
relied upon the decisions of this Court in the case of  N.
Vasundhara Vs. State of Mysore  reported in ( 1971) 2
SCC   22   and   in   the   case   of   Jayshree   Vs.   State   of
Kerala  reported in  (1976) 3 SCC 730  in support of his
submission   that   for   upliftment   of   local   residents
belonging to the Schedules Areas, the Governor can in
exercise of powers conferred under para 5 of the Fifth
Schedule   stay   any   of   the   Act   made   by   the   Parliament
and   /   or   State   and   the   same   cannot   be   said   to   be
affecting   rights   of   the   individual   under   Articles   16(2)
and 16(3) of the Constitution of India.
9.0. Shri   Vikas   Singh,   learned   Senior   Advocate   appearing
on behalf of some of the original petitioners has made
further   submission   in   support   of   the   prayer   to   mould
the   relief   to   protect   the   services   of   the   already
appointed   candidates   as   they   participated   in   a   fair
process   of   selection   in   which   no   malpractice   was
involved.   It   is   submitted   that   even   today,   there   are
more   than   4000   posts   available   in   the   Scheduled
Page   37  of   107

Districts   which   are   lying   vacant.   In   support   of   his
above prayer, it is urged that this Court, in the case of
Chebrolu   Leela   Prasad   Rao   (supra)   had   saved   the
appointments   already   made.   It   is   submitted   that   this
was   because   at   least   50%   of   the   seats   had   been
reserved   for   Scheduled   Tribes   only   which   was   struck
down   by   this   Court.   It   is   submitted   that   applying   the
said   observations   in   the   present   case   also   this   Court
while   exercising   its   extraordinary   powers   conferred
under   Article   142   of   the   Constitution   of   India   may
protect   the   appointments   made   in   the   State   of
Jharkhand   as   about   50%   appointments   of   total
advertised   vacancies   have   been   made   till   now.   It   is
submitted   that   if   the   appointments   already   made   are
set aside pursuant to the impugned common judgment
and   order   passed   by   the   High   Court,   in   that   case,
lakhs   of   children   who   go   to   the   school   would   be
without   teachers   which   would   be   contrary   to   the
constitutional   mandate   of   Right   to   Education   as
provided under Article 21A of the Constitution of India.
Page   38  of   107

9.1. It   is   submitted   that   thousands   of   innocent
petitioners / teachers will be rendered unemployed as
against   219   contesting   respondents   /   interveners.
That   the  paramount   public  interest  demands  that   the
appointments already made are not disturbed and the
impugned   judgment   is   made   to   apply   only
prospectively.
9.2. It   is   submitted   that   as   such   the   original   petitioners
took   part   in   the   selection   process,   knowing   fully   well
about   the   reservation   made   in   favour   of   the   local
residents   of   the   Scheduled   Districts   and   thereafter
having  taken part in the  selection  process and having
failed in getting selected, they cannot now turn around
and   challenge   the   conditions   laid   down   in   the
advertisement.
9.3. It   is   further   submitted   that   it   is   not   true   that   less
meritorious   candidates   were   given   appointment   and
the   rights   of   meritorious   candidates   has   been
hampered.   That   as   a   matter   of   fact,   in   all   most   every
Page   39  of   107

subject most of the appellants herein were much more
meritorious than that of last selected / non selected /
less   meritorious   candidates   of   Non­Scheduled
Districts.
Making above submissions, it is prayed to mould
the relief and to direct to apply the impugned common
judgment   and   order   passed   by   the   High   Court
prospectively   and   /   or   at   least   to   save   appointments
already made. 
10.0. Similar   prayer   to   mould   the   relief   and   save   the
appointments   already   made   and   to   direct   to   apply
impugned   judgment   and   order   passed   by   the   High
Court   prospectively   has   been   made   by   Shri   P.S.
Patwalia, learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf
of some of the appellants/ teachers already appointed.
In the alternative, it is prayed that only those writ
petitioners   i.e.,   about   219   candidates   may   be   given
opportunity to submit an option of the Districts where
Page   40  of   107

they would like to be appointed, which would be done
with   reference   to   their   merit   against   the   vacant   posts
and with respect to rest of the vacant posts, the State
may   issue   a   fresh   advertisement   in   accordance   with
law, with the age relaxation to the candidate who had
already   participated   in   the   2016   selection.   In   support
of   his   above   submission,   reliance   is   placed   on   the
decision   of   this   Court   in   the   case   of   Hanuman   Dutt
Shukla Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh  reported in  (2018)
16 SCC 447 . 
10.1. Shri   Patwalia,   learned   Senior   Advocate   has   also
reiterated   what   has   been   submitted   on   behalf   of   the
other   counsel   on   merits   by   assailing   the   impugned
common judgment and order passed by the High Court
and  on   the  constitutional  validity  of  the   Notification   /
Orders   issued   by   the   Governor   /   State   Government
providing   reservation   for   candidates   belonging   to   the
local residents of the Scheduled Areas/ Districts.
11.0. Ms.   Vibha   Datta   Makhija,   learned   Senior   Advocate
appearing on behalf of some of the appellants herein –
candidates   already   appointed   has   made   following
submissions   in   support   of   her   prayer   to   mould   the
Page   41  of   107

relief in favour of already appointed candidates.
I. That   the   appointments   were   made   before   the
decision   of   this   Court   in   the   case   of   Chebrolu
Leela   Prasad   Rao   (supra) .   Thus,   at   the   time   of
appointment   of   the   petitioners   herein,   law   in  the
State   of   Jharkhand   was   not   clear   and   was   in   a
state of flux;
II. Even this Court has vide final order in the case of
Chebrolu   Leela   Prasad   Rao   (supra)   has   saved
the appointments;
III. That all the appointed candidates­ petitioners are
appointed   by   a  fair   process   of  selection   and   they
are all meritorious candidates;
IV. The   Schools   would   be   without   teachers   in   case
the   petitioners   are   ousted   from   service.   In   SLP
(C)No.12490   of   2020   about   1108   schools   would
be having no teachers and therefore, it may affect
the education of the pupils. That the residents of
the   Scheduled   Areas   are   also   having   right   to
education   which   is   a   fundamental   right   as
provided   under   the   Constitution   of   India.
Therefore,   if   the   petitioners   and   other   already
appointed teachers are removed, in that case, the
Page   42  of   107

schools would be without teachers and therefore,
it may affect / hamper the education in the State
of Jharkhand.
11.1. Ms.   Makhija,   learned   Senior   Advocate   has   also   relied
upon   the   decisions   of   this   Court   in   the   case   of
Chebrolu   Leela   Prasad   Rao   (supra) ,   Kailash   Chand
Sharma   Vs.   State   of   Rajasthan   reported   in   (2002)   6
SCC 562 ,  K Madhav Reddy Vs. State of A.P  reported
in   (2014)   6   SCC   537 ,   R.K.   Sabharwal   Vs.   State   of
Punjab   reported   in   (1995)   2   SCC   745   and   Baburam
Vs.   CC   Jacob   reported   in   (1999)   3   SCC   362 ,   in
support  of  her   prayer   to  direct to  apply   the  impugned
judgment   and   order   passed   by   the   High   Court   only
prospectively.
12. While   assailing   the   impugned   judgment   and   order
passed   by   the   High   Court   Shri   Kapil   Sibal,   learned
Senior Advocate and Shri Sunil Kumar, learned Senior
Advocate   appearing   on   behalf   of   the   State   of
Jharkhand   have   vehemently   submitted   that   in   the
Page   43  of   107

present   case   and   in   the   facts   and     circumstances   of
the   case,   High   Court   has   committed   a   grave   error   in
declaring   the   Notification   /   Order   issued   by   the
Governor   /   State   Government   and   the   advertisement
providing   reservation   for   the   local   residents   of
Scheduled   Area   /   Districts   as   unconstitutional   and
ultra vires Articles 14, 16 and 35 of the Constitution of
India.
12.1. It   is   submitted   on   behalf   of   the   State   that   there   is   a
basic   fallacy   in   the   contention   of   the   original
petitioners   that   the   impugned   Notification   makes   the
District   as   the   basis   of   classification.   It   is   submitted
that   as   such   a   classification   is   made   by   the
Constitution itself and the basis is “Scheduled Area” as
contemplated  under  Article  244  r/w  Fifth   Schedule  of
the   Constitution   of   India.   That   the   Scheduled   Areas
are   such   of   those   areas   comprised   of   mostly   tribal
population  within  the  different  States  constituting  the
Union   of   India   which   the   Constitution   of   India   treats
as   special   in   the   matter   of   its   governance.   That   the
Page   44  of   107

President   may,   by   an   order   declare   any   such   area   as
Scheduled  Area  under  para  6 of  Fifth  Schedule  of  the
Constitution   of   India.   Under   sub­para   2   of   para   5   of
Fifth Schedule, the President may direct that the whole
or any specified part of a Scheduled Area shall cease to
be a Scheduled Area or a part of such an area, or even
increase   the   area   of   a   Scheduled   Area   in   the   State.
Thus the President may declare an entire District as a
Scheduled Area or a part of the District as a Scheduled
Area   or   even   the   combination   of   two   Districts   as   a
Scheduled   Area.     It   is   submitted   that   in   the   instant
case   on   a   consideration   of   the   demography   of   the
different   Districts   in   the   State   of   Jharkhand,   the
President   of   India   formed   an   opinion   to   declare   the
areas   comprised   in   13   Districts   as   a   Scheduled   Area
and   made   the   Scheduled   Areas   (State   of   Jharkhand)
Order,   2007.   That   as   time   passes   the   President   may
declare   that   a   portion   of   any   of   the   13   Districts   may
cease to be a Scheduled Area or even increase the area
of   any   of   the   declared   Scheduled   Areas   by   combining
portions   of   two   Districts.   Therefore   the   impugned
Page   45  of   107

Notification  and  order  makes the  District  as the  basis
of   classification.   It   is   submitted   that   as   such   there   is
no   challenge   to   the   Scheduled   Area   (State   of
Jharkhand) Order, 2007 in these cases.
12.2. So  far   as   the   contention   on   behalf  of   the   original   writ
petitioners   that   impugned   Notification   and   Order
purport   to   modify   Rules   framed   under   the     proviso   to
Article 309 which are neither an Act of Parliament nor
an   Act   of   State   Legislature,   it   is   submitted   that   as
such impugned Notification carves out an exception by
stating   “Notwithstanding   anything   contained   in   these
rules or any other  Act, Order, Direction, Rules or Law
for   the   time   being   in   force”   and   hence   would   include
an Act of Parliament like the “Right of Children to  Free
and   Compulsory   Education   Act,   2009”     which   was
enacted pursuant to Article 21­A of the Constitution of
India   and   is   applicable   to   Elementary   Schools.   It   is
submitted that Section 23 of the said 2009 Act makes
provision   for   eligibility   for   appointment   of   teachers   in
Elementary   Schools.   Hence   the   impugned   Notification
Page   46  of   107

would   have   to   be   read   as   carving   out   an   exception   /
modification   to   an   Act   of   the   Parliament   i.e.,   Section
23   of   the   said   2009   Act   and   same   cannot   be   faulted
with.
12.3. It is submitted that the impugned Notification and the
Rules   appended   thereto   which   are   being   excepted   /
modified,   are   both   expressed   to   have   been   made   by
“The   Order   of   the   Governor”   and   authenticated   in   the
manner   prescribed   under   Article   166(2)   of   the
Constitution of India. That the source of power to issue
the impugned Notification can be traced to para 5(1) of
Schedule   V   as   also   proviso   to   Article   309   of   the
Constitution of India. It is submitted that the omission
to   mention   “read   with   proviso   to   Article   309   of   the
Constitution”   after   ‘in   exercise   of   powers   conferred   by
the   provision   of   sub­para   (1)   of   para   5   of   the   Fifth
Schedule   ...”   in   the   impugned   Notification   shall   not
affect / invalidate the amendment to the Rules framed
under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution  of
India. That in the case of  Union of India and Anr. Vs.
Page   47  of   107

Tulsiram   Patel   reported   in   (1985)   3   SCC   398   (para
126)   it   is   observed   that   the   source   of   power   exists   by
reading   together   two   provisions,   whether   statutory   or
constitutional and the order refers to only one of them
but   the   validity   of   the   order   should   be   upheld   by
construing   it   as   an   order   passed   under   both   the
provisions.
12.4 Now so far as submission on behalf of the original writ
petitioners whether the impugned Notification / Order
are violative of Article 16 of the Constitution of India is
concerned,   it   is   vehemently   submitted   that   the
impugned Notification and Order are not “only” on the
ground   of   residence.   It   is   submitted   that   social
indicators   in   the   scheduled   areas   being   lesser   as
compared   to   the   other   areas   of   the   State   as   also   the
other factors mentioned in the impugned Notification /
Order   which   indicate   that   those   residing   therein   are
not   equally   circumstanced   as   those   residing   in   the
Non­   Scheduled   Areas,   there   is   no   equality   of
opportunity.   Hence,   a   duty   is   cast   upon   the   State   to
minimize     the   inequalities   in   income   and   endevour   to
Page   48  of   107

eliminate   inequalities   in   status,   facilities   and
opportunities,   not   only   amongst   individuals   but   also
amongst group of  people  residing  in  different  areas  or
engaged in different vocations.  It is submitted that the
Directive Principle of State policy contained in Articles
38, 39, 39­A, 43 and 46 part IV of the Constitution of
India would apply in this case. It is submitted that the
impugned order No.5939 dated 14.07.2016 was issued
after   noticing   the   Report   of   Tribal   Advisory   Council
and   various   factors   of   inequality   between   the
Scheduled Areas and Non­Scheduled Area, it is stated
therein that, inter alia, that additional opportunities of
employment   had   to   be   provided   to   those   residing   in
Scheduled   Areas.   That   in   the   case   of   Kailash   Chand
Sharma   (supra)   (para   48)   it   is   observed   that
“equalising unequals by taking note of their handicaps
and   limitation   is   not   impermissible   under   the
Constitution provided that it seeks to achieve the goals
of   promoting   overall   equality”.   It   is   urged   that   in   the
present   case   it   was   expected   that   overall   equality
would be achieved by expression / modification of the
Page   49  of   107

Rules  made  by  impugned  Notification  and  Order  for  a
period   of  ten   years.  Therefore,  as   such,  the   impugned
Notification   and   order   cannot   be   said   to   be   violative
Article 16 of the Constitution of India.
12.5. Now so far as submission on behalf of the original writ
petitioners   that   the   impugned   Notification   is   violative
of Article 14 of the Constitution  of India is concerned,
it is vehemently submitted by learned Senior Advocate
on   behalf   of   the   State   that   such   argument   based   on
infringement of Article 14 is fallacious. It is contended
that   while   Article   14   guarantees   that   the   State   shall
not deny to any person equality before law or the equal
protection   of   laws,   para   5(1)   of   Fifth   Schedule   starts
with   a   non   obstante   clause   which   empowers   the
Governor   to   direct   that   any   Central   Law   or   State   Law
shall not  apply  to a Scheduled Area or  part thereof or
may apply with such exceptions or modifications as he
may   direct.   It   is   submitted   that   if   the   submission   on
behalf   of   the   original   petitioners   that   the   impugned
notification   /   order   is   in   violation   of   Article   14   is
Page   50  of   107

accepted,   in   that   case,   it   would   lead   to   an   apparent
conflict   between   two   constitutional   provisions,   viz.
Article   14   and   para   5(1)   of   Fifth   Schedule.   It   is
submitted   that   this   conflict   can   only   be   resolved   by
following   the   well   settled   principle   of   harmonious
construction that the special law shall prevail over the
general.   Reliance   is   placed   on   the   decision   of   this
Court in the case of   J K Spinning and Weaving Mills
Co.   Ltd   Vs.   State   of   UP   reported   in   AIR   1961   SC
1170   (para   9).   It   is   submitted   that   said   provision   for
the   Governance   and   development   of   the   Scheduled
Areas and  the  Tribals residing  therein would never  be
subject   to   the   general   provisions   of   the   fundamental
rights guaranteed under Article 16.
12.6 In   the   alternative,   it   is   prayed   by   the   learned   Senior
Advocate   appearing   on   behalf   of   the   State   not   to
disturb   the  appointments   already   made   earlier   and   to
apply   the   impugned   common   judgment   and   order
passed by the High Court prospectively so that it may
not   affect   the   education   of   the   local   residents   of   the
Page   51  of   107

Scheduled Areas. It is submitted that if the impugned
judgment   and   order   passed   by   the   High   Court   is
implemented   and   the   appointments   already   made   are
also set aside as observed and held by the High Court,
in  that   case,  the  teachers  will  have  to  be  relieved and
many   schools   in   the   Scheduled   Areas   would   be
without   teachers   and   it   may   ultimately   hamper
education   in   the   State   and   which   may   violate   the
fundamental   rights   which   would   be   available   to   the
local   residents   of   the   Scheduled   Area   guaranteed
under Article 21 A of the Constitution of India.
13. Present Appeals are vehemently opposed by Shri Ranjit
Kumar   and   Shri   Gopal   Sankaranarayanan,   learned
Senior Advocates appearing on behalf of the contesting
respondents   –   original   petitioners   –   candidates
belonging to the Non­Scheduled Areas / Districts.
13.1. Shri Ranjit Kumar, learned Senior Advocate  appearing
on   behalf   of   the   original   writ   petitioners   appearing   in
Civil Appeal No.4044 of 2022 on behalf of Soni Kumari
Page   52  of   107

has   submitted   that   the   original   writ   petitioners   (W.P
No.1387   of   2017   before   the   High   Court)   approached
the   High   Court   challenging   the   State   Government
Notification   No.5938     and   Order   No.5939   dated
14.07.2016 whereby in Thirteen Scheduled Districts in
Jharkhand   (out   of   total   24   Districts)   only   local
residents   of   Thirteen   Scheduled   Districts   were   made
eligible for appointment to Class III and IV posts for a
period   of   10   years   as   well   as   advertisement   dated
28.12.2016 as modified on 4.12.2017 and clause V (iii)
which   restricted   only   local   residents   /   domicile   of
notified   /   Scheduled   Districts   alone   being   entitled   to
submit   application   against   vacancies   earmarked   for
the   said   Districts.     It   is   submitted   that   due   to   the
impugned     Notification   /  order  and   the   advertisement
she   was   constrained   to   submit   the   application   Form
for District Palamu – a Non­Scheduled District, though
after   her   marriage   she   is   residing   at   Ranchi,   a
Scheduled   District.   It   is   submitted   that   she   had
secured   more   marks   than   the   cut   off   marks   obtained
by   the   last   selected   candidate   in   her   category   and
Page   53  of   107

subject in the Scheduled Districts  and yet she was not
selected.   It   is   submitted   that   in   this   factual
background the challenge to the impugned notification
/   order   and   the   advancement   are   required   to   be
appreciated.
13.2. It   is   submitted   by   Shri   Ranjit   Kumar,   learned   Senior
Advocate that the issues which arises for consideration
in the instant case are:
I. Whether   the   exercise   of   Governor's   power   under
Paragraph   5   of   the   Fifth   Schedule   is   a   "plenary
power"   or   an   "enabling   power"   which   must   meet
the   test   of   basic   feature/foundational   principles
and fundamental rights guaranteed under Part III
of the Constitution?
II. Whether the Governor is vested with the power to
determine   eligibility   based   on   residence
(specifying   100%   reservation   for   domiciles   in
Schedule   Districts)   under   Paragraph   5(1)   of   the
Fifth Schedule?
III. Whether GOs No. 5938 & 5939 dated 14.07.2016
whereby   in   the   13   Scheduled   Districts   in
Jharkhand,   Only   local   residents   of   the   said
districts were declared eligible for appointment to
Page   54  of   107

Class Ill and IV posts for a period of 10 years are
ultra   vires   Articles   14,   16(2)&(3)   and   35   (a­i)   of
the Constitution?
13.3. In support of the submissions on behalf of the original
petitioners   –   candidates   belonging   to   the   Non­
Scheduled   Areas   that   the   impugned   Notification   /
Order   and   the   advertisement   restricting   the   local
residents   of   the   Scheduled   Area   only   to   apply   for   the
post   in   the   Scheduled   Area   are   ultra   vires   to   Articles
14   &   16   of   the   Constitution   of   India   and   it   affects
candidates   belonging   to   the   non­Scheduled   Area
guaranteed under Part III of the Constitution of India,
following submissions are made: 
I. The power vested with the Governor under Article
244(1)   read   with   the   Fifth   Schedule   of   the
Constitution   is   not   a   plenary   power   but   is   an
enabling   power   to   meet   the   object   specified
therein   i.e.,   "Administration   of   the   Scheduled
Areas".   Paragraph   5(1)   of   the   Fifth   Schedule   is
one   facet   of   this   enabling   power   vested   with   the
Governor.   In   terms   of   this   paragraph,   he   may
determine   which   Parliament   or   State   legislation
Page   55  of   107

shall   apply   to   the   Scheduled   Area,   specify   the
exceptions/modifications   to   the   legislations   so
specified   and   also   determine   retrospective
applicability of such legislation;
II. The   power   of   the   Governor   under   Para   5(1)   of
Fifth   Schedule   does   not   extend   to   subordinate
legislation; it is with respect to an Act enacted in
the   sovereign   function   by   the   Parliament   or
legislature   of   the   State   which   can   only   be   dealt
with;
III. The   Non   obstante   clause   in   Paragraph   5   of   Fifth
Schedule cannot be construed as taking away the
provision outside the limitations on the amending
power   and   has   to   be   harmoniously   construed
consistent   with   the   foundational   principles   and
the basic features of the Constitution;
IV. The Governor's power under Para 5(1) of the Fifth
Schedule   to   the   Constitution   is   subject   to   some
restrictions,   which   have   to   be   observed   by   the
Parliament   or   the   legislature   of   the   State   while
making   law   and   shall   not   affect   fundamental
rights   guaranteed   under   Part   III   of   the
Constitution;
In   support   of   above   submissions,   heavy   reliance
Page   56  of   107

is   placed   on   the   decision   of   this   Court   in   the   case   of
Chebrolu   Leela   Prasad   Rao   (supra)   (Paras   102­104,
154(1)(c)). 
13.4. It   is   further   submitted   by   Shri   Ranjit   Kumar,   learned
Senior Advocate that residence local by itself cannot be
a   ground   to   accord   any   preferential   treatment   for
reservation   in   public   employment   by   the   State
Government  since the  same stands  specifically   barred
by Article 16(1) and (2) of the Constitution. Reliance is
placed   on   the   decision   of   this   Court   in   the   case   of
State   of   Orissa   &   Ors   Vs.   Sudhir   Kumar   Bishwal   &
Ors  reported in 1994 Supp (3) SCC 245 para 6 and 8.
13.5. It is further submitted that the Governor lacks subject
matter   jurisdiction  to  prescribe  any  requirement  as to
residence within   the State  in  light  of Article 16(3) r/w
Article 35 (a­i) of the Constitution which mandate that
power   to   create   residential   qualification   for
employment is exclusively conferred on Parliament and
not   the   State   Legislature   which,   by   necessary
corollary, shall exclude the State  Executive (Governor)
Page   57  of   107

whose power is co­terminus with the State Legislature.
It is submitted that the Parliament alone is empowered
to   make   the   law   prescribing   residential   requirement
within a State or Union Territory, as the case may be,
in   relation   to   a   class   or   classes   of   employment.   It   is
submitted   that   therefore,   in   the   absence   of
parliamentary   law,   even   the   prescription   of
requirement   as   to   residence   within   the   State   is
impossible. In support of above submission, reliance is
placed on the decision of this Court in the case of  AVS
Narasimha Rao & Ors. Vs. State  of Andhra  Pradesh
& Anr.  reported in  (1969) 1 SCC 839 ,   Kailash Chand
Sharma   Vs.   State   of   Rajasthan   &   Ors.   reported   in
(2002)   6   SCC   562   (para   13­14)   and   Rajesh   Kumar
Gupta   &   Ors.   Vs.   State   of   UP   &   Ors.   reported   in
(2005) 5 SCC 172  (para 16 &b 17).
13.6. It   is   further   submitted   that   even   otherwise   impugned
orders   /   notification   as   sought   to   introduce   100%
reservation   in   the   Thirteen   Scheduled   District   in   the
Page   58  of   107

State   of   Jharkhand   whereby   only   local   residents   of
said Districts were declared eligible for appointment to
Class   III   and   IV   posts   for   the   period   of   10   years,   are
contrary to the law laid down by this Court in the case
of   Indra Sawhney (supra)   (para 788) as well as recent
decision   of   the   Constitutional   Bench   of   this   Court   in
the case of   Chebrolu Leela Prasad Rao (supra)    (para
104)   wherein   it   has   been   held   that   the   outer   limit   of
the   reservations   contemplated   in   Clause   (4)   of   Article
16   of   the   Constitution   of   India   should   not   normally
exceed the limit of 50%.
13.7. Now   so   far   as   justification   by   the   State   in   invoking
“sons   of   the   soil”   policy   prescribing   reservation   or
preference   based   on   domicile   or   residence   as   already
been decried by this Court in the case of   Dr. Pradeep
Jain Vs. UOI  reported in  (1984) 3 SCC 654  (para 5), it
is   submitted   that   in   the   said   decision   it   is   observed
and held that the Parliament alone has been given the
right   to   enact   an   exception   to   the   ban   on
discrimination   based   on   residence.   The   impugned
Page   59  of   107

Government   Notifications   No.   5938   &   5939   dated
14.07.2016   are   ex   facie   violative   of   Article   14   of   the
Constitution   in   as  much  as   the  same  is  not   based  on
any   intelligible   differentia   and   does   not   have   any
rational   nexus   with   the   object   and   purpose   it   has   set
out   to   achieve   i.e.,   selection   of   the   most   competent
teachers to impart quality education in secondary and
high   schools   run   by   State   Government   and
improvement   of   educational   standard   of   the   residents
within   the   State.   It   is   submitted   that   many   districts
notified   as   Scheduled   Districts   like   East   Singhbhum
(Jamshedpur)   and   Ranchi   are   at   the   top   half   of   the
Human   Development   Index   (HDI)   in   Jharkhand
whereas   the   Petitioner's   District   Palamau   has   the
lowest   HDI   in   the   State,   yet   has   been   classified   as   a
Non­Scheduled  District  which  smacks of  arbitrariness
adopted by the State in determination of Schedule and
Non­ Scheduled Districts.
13.8. It is further submitted that even the contention raised
by   the   State   Government   and   some   of   the   learned
Page   60  of   107

counsel   appearing   on   behalf   of   the   candidates
belonging   to   the   Scheduled   Areas   that   the   impugned
Notification   /   Order   were   premised   on   the   basis   that
candidates who knew the local tribal language spoken
in the concerned district would be in a better position
to   teach   the   students,   is   absolutely   fallacious.   It   is
submitted   that   as   such   said   contention   has   not   been
approved  and   /   or   accepted   by   this   Court  in   the   case
of   Chebrolu   Leela   Prasad   Rao   (supra) .   That   even
otherwise   TGT   Recruitment   Process   is   conducted   for
selection   of   Trained   Graduate   Teachers   to   teach
various subjects in Secondary Schools.  It is submitted
that   thus   excepting   for   the   local   tribal   language
subject,   all   other   subjects   (viz.   English,   Hindi,
Mathematics,   Science,   Social   Studies)   which   are
general   in   nature   must   be   taught   by   the   most
meritorious teachers so as to bring about an all­round
development   of   the   students   as   opposed   to   a
substandard   teacher   whose   contribution   is   negligible
in academics.
Page   61  of   107

It is submitted that  Hindi is the  official  language
in   Jharkhand   and   is   also   the   common   medium   of
interaction   among   the   various   regions   in   the   State
since over 21 languages are spoken in the State. That
therefore,   it   stands   to  no   reason   that   persons   who  do
not know all 21 regional languages spoken in the State
would   be   unable   to   impart   education   to   the   students
in   those   regions.   It   is   submitted   that   any   person   who
is well versed in Hindi (Devnagari script) is more than
competent   to   effectively   impart   education   to   the
students   in   all   districts   in   the   State   without   any
hindrance.
13.9. It   is   further   submitted   by   Shri   Ranjit   Kumar,   learned
Senior   Advocate   that   once   impugned   Notification   /
Order are held to be unconstitutional and ultra vires to
Articles  14, 16 and  35 of  the Constitution   of India, in
that   case,   any   appointment   made   violating   the
fundamental rights of the original writ petitioners and
appointment   made   pursuant  to   such   unconstitutional
provisions,   the   same   have   to   be   set   aside.   It   is
Page   62  of   107

submitted   that   therefore,   the   High   Court   has   not
committed   any   error   in   quashing   the   appointment   of
the   original   writ   petitioner.   In   support   of   his   above
submission, following recent decisions are relied upon:
I. Anupal Singh Vs. State of UP  reported in  (2020)
2 SCC 173 .
II. State   of   UP   and   Ors.   Vs.   Anand   Kumar   Yadav
and Ors.  reported in  (2018) 13 SCC 560 .
III. Renu Vs. District & Sessions Judge   reported in
(2014) 15 SCC 731 .
IV. State   of   MP   Vs.   Dharam   Bir   reported   in   (1998)
6 SCC 165.
V. Syed   Khalid   Rizvi   and   Ors.   Vs.   Union   of   India
and Ors.  reported in  1993 Supp. (3) SCC 575.
VI. Surajprakash   Gupta   and   Ors.   Vs.   State   of   J   &
K and Ors . reported in  (2000) 7 SCC 561 .
VII. R.S.   Garg   Vs.   State   of   UP   and   Ors.   reported   in
(2006) 6 SCC 430 .
VIII. Secretary,   State   of   Karnataka   and   Ors.   Vs.
Umadevi   (3)   and   Ors.   reported   in   (2006)   4   SCC
1 .
13.10   It   is   further   submitted   by   Shri   Ranjit   Kumar,
Page   63  of   107

learned   Senior   Advocate   appearing   on   behalf   of   the
respective   original   writ   petitioners   –   candidates
belonging   to   the   Non­Scheduled   Districts   has   also
requested  to   mould   the  relief   under   Article  142   of  the
Constitution  of India  by   directing  to  prepare a  revised
merit   list   based   on   the   already   published   cut   off
obtained   by   the   last   selected   candidate   in   each   TGT
subject   against   respective   categories.   It   is   submitted
that   this   would   entail   that   no   fresh   or   de   novo
recruitment   process   is   initiated   qua   the   advertised
posts   on   the   one   hand,   while   on   the   other   hand
candidates   from   the   present   pool   itself   including   the
original   writ   petition   –   Soni   Kumar   and   218   similarly
situated   candidates   as   well   as   even   the   present
selected   candidates   will   get   an   opportunity   to   be
considered for appointment as TGT teachers. Reliance
is   placed   on   the   decision   of   this   Court   in   the   case   of
Rajesh   Kumar   Vs.   State   of   Bihar   reported   in   (2013)
4   SCC   690   and   Ran   Vijay   Singh   Vs.   State   of   UP
reported   in   (2018)   2   SCC   357 ,   in   support   of   his
Page   64  of   107

request and prayer to mould the relief as prayed for.
14. Shri   Gopal   Sankaranarayanan,   the   learned   Senior
Advocate   has   also   made   elaborate   submissions   in
support of the impugned common judgment and order.
15. In   the   State   of   Jharkhand   13   Districts   were   declared
as   Scheduled   Districts   /   Areas   in   exercise   of   powers
conferred   by   sub­paragraph   (2)   of   Paragraph   6   of   the
Fifth   Schedule   to   the   Constitution   of   India.   That   the
State   Government   has   framed   the   Recruitment   Rules,
2015   prescribing   conditions   /   qualifications   for
appointment   of   teachers.   The   said   Rules   are   in
exercise   of   powers   under   Article   309   of   the
Constitution   of   India.   That   vide   Circular   dated
18.04.2016   and   pursuant   to   the   order   passed   by   the
High   Court,   the   State   Government   has   prescribed
definition of “Local Resident of Jharkhand”. As per the
said   circular,   Local   Resident   of   Jharkhand   would   be
deemed to be Indian Citizens who are fulfilling any one
condition out of the following criteria: ­ 
Page   65  of   107

“(i). he   would   have   been   residing   within   the
geographical   limits   of   the   State   of   Jharkhand   and
either his own name or name of his forefather would
have   been   lying   recorded   in   Survey   Khata.   In   the
cases   of   landless,   he   would   be   identified   by   the
concerning   Gram   Sabha   which   would   be   based   on
language, culture & traditions prevailing in the State
of Jharkhand.
(ii)would have been residing within the geographical
limits   of   the   State   of   Jharkhand   for   the     past   30
years   or   more   due   to   any   trade,   employment   and
other   reasons   and   would   have   earned   immovable
property   or   such   person   has   wife/husband   /child
and affirm commitment to stay in Jharkhand State.
(iii)   would   have   been   appointed   &   working
officer/employee   under   the   Government   of   State   of
Jharkhand   /   institutions   being   run/recognized   by
the State Government, Corporation etc.  Or   has
wife/husband /child and affirm commitment to stay
in Jharkhand state.
(iv)Officer/employee   of   the   Government   of   India,
working in the  State   of   Jharkhand   or   have   188
wife/husband /child and affirm  commitment   to
stay in Jharkhand state.
(v)Person   appointed   at   any   constitutional   or
statutory posts in  the   State   of   Jharkhand   or   have
wife/husband /child and affirm  commitment   to
stay in Jharkhand state.
(vi)   Such   person   who   would   have   born   in   the   State
of   Jharkhand   and   completed   his   whole   education
upto   Matriculation   or   its   equivalent   level   from   the
recognized   institutions   established   in   the   state   of
Jharkhand   &   affirm   commitment   to   stay   in
Jharkhand state.”
16. That   thereafter,   Governor   of   Jharkhand   /   State
Government   in   exercise   of   powers   under   Paragraph
2(1)   of   the   Fifth   Schedule   to   the   Constitution   of   India
Page   66  of   107

has   issued   the   order   /   Notification   dated   14.07.2016,
inter   alia,   providing   that   notwithstanding   anything
contained in any Appointment / Recruitment Rules or
any   other   Act,   Order,   Direction,   Rules   or   Law   for   the
time   being   in   force   only   local   residents   of   the
Scheduled   Areas   /   Districts   in   the   State   shall   be
eligible for recruitment to the vacancy arising in Class
III   and   IV   posts   of   the   District   Cadre   in   various
departments of the concerned Districts, for a period of
10 years from the date of issue of the said Notification.
The Order and Notification, validity of which have been
questioned, are extracted hereinunder:
“ G overnment of Jharkhand
Deptt. of Personnel, Administrative Reforms &
Rajbhasha
Order
  Ranchi, Dated 14.07.2016
No.   5939   /   Whereas,   under   sub­paragraph   (1)   of
paragraph 5 of the Fifth Schedule to the Constitution
of   India,   the   Governor   may,   by   public   notification
direct that any particular Act of Parliament or of the
Legislature of the State shall not apply to a Schedule
Area or any part thereof in the State subject to such
exceptions   and   modifications   as   specified   in   the
notification.
Page   67  of   107

And   whereas,   the   Scheduled   Area   in   the   State   are
characterized   by   low   Human   Development   Indices,
backwardness,   W.P.(C)   No.   1387   of   2017   and
analogous matters remoteness poverty and whereas
the   social   indicators   of   the   Scheduled   Areas   are   on
an   average,   inferior   to   the   average   of   social
indicators   in   the   State   due   to   uneven   topography,
lack   of   water   resources,   loss   in   canopy   coverage   of
forest and uncontrolled rapid industrialization;
And   whereas,   recognizing   the   factors   identified
above, the Tribal Advisory Council of Jharkhand has
recommended   issuing   of   a   notification   by   the
Governor   for   suspension   of   eligibility   conditions   as
enshrined   in   various   appointment   rules   for   the
appointment  of   class   3  and  class  4   posts  at  district
level   for   a   period   of   10   years   in   the   13   districts
namely­   Sahebganj,   Pakur,   Dumka,   Jamtara,
Latehar,   Ranchi,   Khunti,   Gumla,   Lohardagga,
Simdega,   East   Singhbhum,   West   Singhbhum   and
Sraikela­Kharsawan for appointment of cent­percent
District   level   class­3   and   class­4   posts   by   the   local
residents of the district concerned;
And whereas, the Governor of Jharkhand in order to
improve   the   quality   of   people   in   the   Scheduled
Areas,   by   providing   additional   opportunities   of
employment,   in   favour   of   the   local   residents   of
Scheduled Areas;
The  following notification shall come into effect from
the date of its publications in the official Gazette.”
“ G overnment of Jharkhand
Deptt. of Personnel, Administrative Reforms &
Rajbhasha
Notification
Ranchi, Dated 14.07.2016
No.14   /   Sthaneeyata   Neeti­14­01/2015/5938   In
exercise   of   powers   conferred   by   the   provisions   by
sub­paragraph   (1)   of   paragraph   5   of   the   Fifth
Schedule to the Constitution of India, the Governor of
Jharkhand,   hereby,   directs   that   the   provisions
Page   68  of   107

regarding   "eligibility   of   the   appointment"   mentioned
in the various appointment rules as per list enclosed,
Government   may   amend   from   time   to   time,   framed
by   the   State   Government   under   article   309   of   the
Constitution for the appointment to the district cadre
posts, shall be deemed to the modified and enforced
up to the extent as specified, hereinafter, namely:­
"Notwithstanding   anything   contained   in   these
rules or any other Act, Order, Direction, Rules
or   Law   for   the   time   being   in   force,   only   local
residents   of   the   districts   namely  ­   Sahebganj,
Pakur,   Dumka,   Jamtara,   Latehar,   Ranchi,
Khunti,   Gumla,   Lohardagga,   Simdega,   East
Singhbhum,  West Singhbhum  and  W.P.(C)  No.
1387 of 2017 and analogous mattersSraikela­
Kharsawan, shall be eligible for recruitment to
the   vacancies   arising   in   class­3   and   class­4
posts   of   the   district   cadre   in   various
department   of   the   concerned   districts,   for   a
period   of   10   years   from   the   date   of   issue   of
this notification."
By order in the name of the 
Governor of Jharkhand 
Sd/­ Nidhi Khare
  Principal Secretary to the
  Government
16.1. Thus,   by   the   aforesaid   impugned   Order   /   Notification
the   Governor   of   Jharkhand   has   directed   that   the
provisions   regarding   “eligibility   of   the   appointment”
mentioned   in   the   various   Appointment   Rules,   and   as
framed   by   the   State   Government   under   Article   309   of
the   Constitution   of   India   for   the   appointment   to   the
District   Cadre   posts,   shall   be   deemed   to   the   modified
and enforced up to the extent   that cent­percent Class­
Page   69  of   107

III and Class­IV posts in various department in the 13
Scheduled   districts   shall   be   reserved   for   the   local
residents of the concerned districts only. At this stage,
it  is required  to   be  noted   that  by   the  said  Notification
only the service Rules framed under Article 309 of the
Constitution of India came to be modified and even the
list   attached   to   the   notification   does   not   contain   any
Act   of   the   Parliament   or   of   the   State   Legislature.   By
the   impugned   judgment   and   order,   the   High   Court,
following   and   relying   upon   the   decision   of   the
Constitutional   Bench   of   this   Court   in   the   case   of
Chebrolu   Leela   Prasad   Rao   (supra)   has   declared   the
aforesaid   Order   /   Notification   dated   14.07.2016   as
unconstitutional   and   consequently   has   quashed
appointments   of   the   trained   graduate   teachers   made
pursuant to the Advertisement No. 21/2016 published
on 28th December, 2016 as modified by Advertisement
dated   4.2.2017,   in   the   Scheduled   Districts   relating   to
the   local   resident   of   those   Districts   only.   That
thereafter,   the   High   Court   has   directed   that   all   the
8423   posts   of   Trained   Graduate   Teacher   in   the
Page   70  of   107

Government   Secondary   Schools   in   the   scheduled
districts of the State of Jharkhand shall be advertised
afresh and a fresh selection  process be undertaken in
accordance   with   law.   The   impugned   judgment   and
order   passed   by   the   High   Court   and   the   aforesaid
directions is the subject matter of the present appeals. 
17. Having   heard   the   learned   counsel   for   the   respective
parties   and   considering   the   impugned   common
judgment   and   order   passed   by   the   High   Court,   the
questions   which   are   posed   for   consideration   of   this
Court are as under:
I. Whether   in   exercise   of   powers   conferred   under
paragraph   5(1)   of   the   Fifth   Schedule   to   the
Constitution   of   India,   whether,   the   Governor   can
provide   for   100%   reservation   contrary   to   Part   III   of
the   Constitution   of   India,   more   particularly,
guaranteed under Article 16(1) and (2) ?
II. Whether   in   exercise   of   powers   under   paragraph   5(1)
of the Fifth Schedule to the Constitution of India the
Governor   has   the   power   to   modify   the   relevant
Recruitment   Rules   framed   under   Article   309   of   the
Constitution of India ?
III. What order ?
Page   71  of   107

17.1. While considering the aforesaid questions / issues the
relevant Constitutional provisions which would have a
direct bearing are required to be referred to, which are
as under: ­
“ Article   13 .   Laws   inconsistent   with   or   in
derogation   of   the   fundamental   rights ­   (1)   All
laws   in   force   in   the   territory   of   India   immediately
before   the   commencement   of  this   Constitution,   in  so
far   as   they   are   inconsistent   with   the   provisions   of
this   Part,   shall,   to   the   extent   of   such   inconsistency,
be void. 
(2)   The   State   shall   not   make   any   law   which   takes
away   or   abridges   the   rights   conferred   by   this   Part
and   any   law   made   in   contravention   of   this   clause
shall, to the extent of the contravention, be void.
  (3)   In   this   article,   unless   the   context   otherwise
requires,—  (a)   “law”   includes   any   Ordinance,   order,
bye­law,   rule,   regulation,   notification,   custom   or
usage   having   in   the   territory   of   India   the   force   of
law; 
(b) “laws in force” includes laws passed or made by
a   Legislature   or   other   competent   authority   in   the
territory   of   India   before   the   commencement   of   this
Constitution   and   not   previously   repealed,
notwithstanding   that   any   such   law   or   any   part
thereof  may not  be  then in operation either  at  all  or
in particular areas. 
(4)   Nothing   in   this   article   shall   apply   to   any
amendment   of   this   Constitution   made   under   article
368.
xxx xxx xxx
Article   16 .   Equality   of   opportunity   in   matters
of public employment ­    (1) There shall be equality
of   opportunity   for   all   citizens   in   matters   relating   to
employment   or   appointment   to   any   office   under   the
Page   72  of   107

State. 
(2) No citizen shall, on grounds only of religion, race,
caste,   sex,   descent,   place   of   birth,   residence   or   any
of them, be ineligible for, or discriminated against in
respect of, any employment or office under the State.
(3)   Nothing   in   this   article   shall   prevent   Parliament
from   making   any   law   prescribing,   in   regard   to   a
class or classes of employment or appointment to an
office   1[under   the   Government   of,   or   any   local   or
other authority within, a State or Union territory, any
requirement   as   to   residence   within   that   State   or
Union   territory]   prior   to   such   employment   or
appointment.
(4) Nothing in this article shall prevent the State from
making   any   provision   for   the   reservation   of
appointments   or   posts   in   favour   of   any   backward
class of citizens which, in the opinion of the State, is
not adequately represented in the services under the
State.
(4A)   Nothing   in   this   article   shall   prevent   the   State
from   making   any   provision   for   reservation   3[in
matters   of   promotion,   with   consequential   seniority,
to   any   class]   or   classes   of   posts   in   the   services
under   the   State   in   favour   of   the   Scheduled   Castes
and   the   Scheduled   Tribes   which,   in   the   opinion   of
the   State,   are   not   adequately   represented   in   the
services under the State.
(4B)   Nothing   in   this   article   shall   prevent   the   State
from   considering   any   unfilled   vacancies   of   a   year
which are reserved for being filled up in that year in
accordance with any  provision for reservation made
under clause (4) or clause (4A) as a separate class of
vacancies   to   be   filled   up   in   any   succeeding   year   or
years   and   such   class   of   vacancies   shall   not   be
considered together with the vacancies of the year in
which   they   are   being   filled   up   for   determining   the
ceiling   of   fifty   per   cent.   reservation   on   total   number
of vacancies of that year.
(5) Nothing in this article shall affect the operation of
any   law   which   provides   that   the   incumbent   of   an
Page   73  of   107

office   in   connection   with   the   affairs   of   any   religious
or   denominational   institution   or   any   member   of   the
governing body thereof shall be a person professing
a   particular   religion   or   belonging   to   a   particular
denomination.
xxx xxx xxx
Article   46.   Promotion   of   educational   and
economic   interests   of   Scheduled   Castes,
Scheduled   Tribes   and   other   weaker   sections   ­
The   State   shall   promote   with   special   care   the
educational   and   economic   interests   of   the   weaker
sections   of   the   people,   and,   in   particular,   of   the
Scheduled   Castes   and   the   Scheduled   Tribes,   and
shall protect them from social injustice and all forms
of exploitation.
xxx xxx xxx
Article 244. Administration of Scheduled Areas
and   Tribal   Areas   ­   (1)   The   provisions   of   the   Fifth
Schedule   shall   apply   to   the   administration   and
control of the Scheduled Areas and Scheduled Tribes
in   any   State   1***   other   than   2[the   States   of
Assam3[,4[Meghalaya, Tripura and Mizoram]. 
(2)   The   provisions   of   the   Sixth   Schedule   shall   apply
to   the   administration   of   the   tribal   areas   in   2[the
States   of   Assam   3[,5[Meghalaya,   Tripura   and
Mizoram]
xxx xxx xxx
Article   246.   Subject­matter   of   laws   made   by
Parliament   and   by   the   Legislatures   of   States   ­
(1)   Notwithstanding   anything   in   clauses   (2)   and   (3),
Parliament   has   exclusive   power   to   make   laws   with
respect to any of the matters enumerated in List I in
the Seventh Schedule (in this Constitution referred to
as the “Union List”). 
(2)   Notwithstanding   anything   in   clause   (3),
Parliament,   and,   subject   to   clause   (1),   the
Legislature   of   any   State   1***   also,   have   power   to
make   laws   with   respect   to   any   of   the   matters
Page   74  of   107

enumerated   in   List   III   in   the   Seventh   Schedule   (in
this   Constitution   referred   to   as   the   “Concurrent
List”).
(3)   Subject   to   clauses   (1)   and   (2),   the   Legislature   of
any State 1*** has exclusive power to make laws for
such State or any part thereof with respect to any of
the   matters   enumerated   in   List   II   in   the   Seventh
Schedule   (in   this   Constitution   referred   to   as   the
“State List”).
(4) Parliament has power to make laws with respect
to any matter for any part of the territory of India not
included   2[in   a   State]   notwithstanding   that   such
matter is a matter enumerated in the State List.
xxx xxx xxx
Article   254.   Inconsistency   between   laws   made
by   Parliament   and   laws   made   by   the
Legislatures   of   States   ­     (1)   If   any   provision   of   a
law made by the Legislature of a State is repugnant
to any provision of a law made by Parliament which
Parliament is competent to enact, or to any provision
of an existing law with respect to one of the matters
enumerated   in   the   Concurrent   List,   then,   subject   to
the   provisions   of   clause   (2),   the   law   made   by
Parliament,   whether   passed   before   or   after   the   law
made   by   the   Legislature   of   such   State,   or,   as   the
case may be, the existing law, shall prevail and the
law made by the Legislature of the State shall, to the
extent of the repugnancy, be void.
(2)   Where  a   law  made   by  the   Legislature   of   a  State
1***   with   respect   to   one   of   the   matters   enumerated
in   the   Concurrent   List   contains   any   provision
repugnant   to   the   provisions   of   an   earlier   law   made
by Parliament or an existing law with respect to that
matter, then,  the   law   so  made  by  the  Legislature   of
such   State   shall,   if   it   has   been   reserved   for   the
consideration   of   the   President   and   has   received   his
assent, prevail in that State:
Provided   that   nothing   in   this   clause   shall   prevent
Parliament   from   enacting   at   any   time   any   law   with
respect   to   the   same   matter   including   a   law   adding
Page   75  of   107

to, amending, varying or repealing the law so made
by the Legislature of the State.
xxx xxx xxx
309.   Recruitment   and   conditions   of   service   of
persons serving   the Union or a State ­  Subject to
the   provisions   of   this   Constitution,   Acts   of   the
appropriate   Legislature   may   regulate   the
recruitment,   and   conditions   of   service   of   persons
appointed, to public services and posts in connection
with the affairs of the Union or of any State:
Provided   that   it   shall   be   competent   for   the
President   or   such   person   as   he   may   direct   in   the
case   of   services   and   posts   in   connection   with   the
affairs of the Union, and for the Governor of a State
or   such   person   as   he   may   direct   in   the   case   of
services   and   posts   in   connection   with   the   affairs   of
the   State,   to   make   rules   regulating   the   recruitment,
and   the   conditions   of   service   of   persons   appointed,
to   such   services   and   posts   until   provision   in   that
behalf is made by or under an Act of the appropriate
Legislature   under   this   article,   and   any   rules   so
made   shall   have   effect   subject   to   the   provisions   of
any such Act
Para 5 of the Fifth Schedule of the Constitution
5.   Law   applicable   to   Scheduled   Areas .—(1)
Notwithstanding   anything   in   this   Constitution,   the
Governor   may   by   public   notification   direct   that   any
particular   Act   of   Parliament   or   of   the   Legislature   of
the State shall not apply to a Scheduled Area or any
part   thereof   in   the   State   or   shall   apply   to   a
Scheduled   Area   or   any   part   thereof   in   the   State
subject   to   such   exceptions   and   modifications   as   he
may   specify   in   the   notification   and   any   direction
given under this sub­paragraph may be given so as
to have retrospective effect. 
(2) The Governor may make regulations for the peace
and good government of any area in a State which is
for   the   time   being   a   Scheduled   Area.   In   particular
Page   76  of   107

and   without   prejudice   to   the   generality   of   the
foregoing power, such regulations may—
(a) prohibit or restrict the transfer of land by or
among   members   of   the   Scheduled   Tribes   in
such area; 
(b)   regulate   the   allotment   of   land   to   members
of the Scheduled Tribes in such area; 
(c)   regulate   the   carrying   on   of   business   as
money­lender   by   persons   who   lend   money   to
members   of   the   Scheduled   Tribes   in   such
area.
(3) In making any such regulation as is referred to in
sub­paragraph   (2)   of   this   paragraph,   the
Governor1***   may   repeal   or   amend   any   Act   of
Parliament   or   of   the   Legislature   of   the   State   or   any
existing law which is for the time being applicable to
the area in question. 
(4)   All   regulations   made   under   this   paragraph   shall
be   submitted   forthwith   to   the   President   and,   until
assented to by him, shall have no effect.
(5)   No   regulation   shall   be   made   under   this
paragraph   unless   the   Governor   making   the
regulation   has,   in   the   case   where   there   is   a   Tribes
Advisory   Council   for   the   State,   consulted   such
Council.
17.2. As   per   Article   246(1),   notwithstanding   anything
contained in clauses (2) and (3), Parliament shall have
exclusive power to make laws with respect to any of the
matters   enumerated   in   List   I   in   the   Seventh   Schedule
(Union   List).   As   per   Article   246(2),   notwithstanding
anything   in   clause   (3),   Parliament,   and,   subject   to
clause  (1), the   Legislature  of  any   State  also   shall  have
Page   77  of   107

power to make laws with respect to any of the matters
enumerated   in   List   III   in   the   Seventh   Schedule
(Concurrent List). As per Article 254 of the Constitution
of India, if any provision of law made by the Legislature
of a State is repugnant to any provision of a law made
by Parliament which Parliament is competent to enact,
or   to   any   provision   of   an   existing   law   with   respect   to
one of the matters enumerated in the Concurrent List,
then,   subject   to   the   provisions   of   clause   (2),   the   law
made by Parliament, whether passed before or after the
law   made   by   the   Legislature   of   such   State,   or,   as   the
case may be, the existing law, shall prevail and the law
made by the Legislature of the State shall, to the extent
of the repugnancy, be void. Thus, as per  the aforesaid
Constitutional   provisions,  law  made by  the  Parliament
is   supreme   and   shall   prevail   and   every   State/State
Legislature   is   bound   by   the   law   made   by   the
Parliament.   However,   paragraph   5   of   the   Fifth
Schedule   to   the   Constitution   of   India   is   an   exception.
Notwithstanding   the   aforesaid   provisions,   giving
supremacy   to   the   law   made   by   the   Parliament,   the
Page   78  of   107

Governor   may   direct   that   any   particular   Act   of
Parliament   or   of   the   Legislature   of   the   State   shall   not
apply   to   a   Scheduled   Area   or   any   part   thereof   in   the
State   or   shall   apply   to   a   Scheduled   Area   or   any   part
thereof   in   the   State   subject   to   such   exceptions   and
modifications   as   he   may   specify   in   the   notification.
Thus, the expression “notwithstanding anything in this
Constitution” is related to the Constitutional provisions
regarding   the   supremacy   of   the   law   made   by   the
Parliament   or   State   Legislature.   This   aspect   shall   be
discussed   herein   below   while   considering   the
submissions   made   on   behalf   of   the   appellants   herein
regarding   paragraph   5(1)   of   the   Fifth   Schedule   to   the
Constitution of India.
17.3. Therefore,   the   short   question   which   is   posed   for   the
consideration   of   this   Court   is,   whether,   in   exercise   of
powers   conferred   under   paragraph   5(1)   of   the   Fifth
Schedule   to   the   Constitution,   the   Governor   can   make
provisions for 100% reservation in the scheduled Areas
/   Districts   which   may   affect   the   rights   of   the   citizens
Page   79  of   107

guaranteed   under   Part   III,   more   particularly,   under
Article   16   (2)   of   the   Constitution   of   India?   Whether
such   reservation   would   not   be   hit   by   Article   13   of   the
Constitution of India?
18. Identical   question   came   to   be   considered   by   the
Constitutional   Bench   of   this   Court   in   the   case   of
Chebrolu Leela Prasad Rao (supra).   Before this Court
the Governor of State of Andhra Pradesh issued GO in
exercise   of   powers   under   paragraph   5(1)   of   the
Schedule   5   of   the   Constitution   of   India,   directing   the
posts   of   teachers   in   educational   institutions   in   the
scheduled   tribe   areas   shall   be   reserved   for   Scheduled
Tribes only notwithstanding anything contained in any
other   order   or   rule   or   law   in   force.   Several   questions
were  referred  to   the  Constitution   Bench.  The  following
questions   were   ultimately   framed   for   consideration   by
the Constitutional Bench:
(1) What is the scope of paragraph 5(1), Schedule V to the
Constitution of India?
(a)   Does   the   provision   empower   the   Governor   to
make a new law?
Page   80  of   107

(b)   Does   the   power   extend   to   subordinate
legislation?
(c) Can the exercise of the power conferred therein
override   fundamental   rights   guaranteed   under
Part III?
(d)   Does   the   exercise   of   such   power   override   any
parallel   exercise   of   power   by   the   President   under
Article 371D?
(2)   Whether   100%   reservation   is   permissible   under   the
Constitution?
(3)   Whether   the   notification   merely   contemplates   a
classification   under   Article   16(1) and   not   reservation
under  Article 16(4)?
(4) Whether the  conditions  of eligibility (i.e., origin and
cut­off date) to avail the benefit of reservation in
the notification are reasonable?"
18.1. Question No.1(a), (b), (c) and question no.3 referred to
herein above are relevant for our purpose.
18.2. After   taking   into   consideration   the   relevant
Constitutional   provisions   viz.   Article   244,   Fifth
Schedule,   so   far   as   question   No.1(a)   viz.   whether   the
provision empower the Governor to make a new law is
concerned, it is observed and held by the Constitution
Page   81  of   107

Bench that the Governor’s power to  make new law is
not available in view of the clear language of Para 5(1)
Fifth   Schedule   does   not   recognize   or   confer   such
power,   but   only   power   is   not   to   apply   the   law   or   to
apply  it with exceptions or modifications.(para 51)
18.3. Answering question no.1(b) viz. does the power extend
to subordinate legislation, it is observed and held that
Rules   framed   under   the   proviso   to   Article   309   of   the
Constitution cannot be said to be an Act of Parliament
or   of   State   Legislature.   It   is   observed   and   held   that
the power  of Governor  under  Para 5(1) of Schedule V
of the Constitution is restricted to modifying or not to
apply,   Acts   of   the   Parliament   or   Legislature   of   the
State.   Thus,   Rules   could   not   have   been   amended   in
the   exercise   of   the   powers   conferred   under   Para   5(1)
of the Schedule V. It is further observed and held that
the Rules made under the proviso to Article 309 of the
Constitution   cannot   be   said   to   be   an   enactment   by
the State Legislature. (paras 52 to 57).
Page   82  of   107

18.4. While answering question 1(c) viz.  can the exercise of
the   powers   conferred   under   Para   5(1)   of   Fifth
Schedule   override   fundamental   rights   guaranteed
under   Part   III,   after   considering   the   decisions   of   this
Court in the case of   Kesavananda Bharati Vs. State
of Kerala  reported in  (1973) 4 SCC 225;   Waman Rao
Vs.   Union   of   India   reported   in   (1981)   2   SCC   362;
I.R. Coelho (Dead) by Lrs. Vs. State of T.N.  reported
in   (2007)   2   SCC   1;   S.R.   Chaudhuri   Vs.   State   of
Punjab   reported   in   (2001)   7   SCC   126 ;   Ajay   Hasia
Vs.   Khalid   Mujib   Sehravadi   reported   in   (1981)   1
SCC   722;   E.P.   Royappa   Vs.   State   of   Tamil   Nadu
reported   in   (1974)   2   SCC   3;   Maneka   Gandhi   Vs.
Union   of   India   reported   in   (1978)   1   SCC   248;
Ramana   Dayaram   Shetty   Vs.   International  Airport
Authority   of   India   and   Ors.   reported   in   (1979)   3
SCC 489;   Neelima Misra Vs. Harinder Kaur Paintal
reported in   (1990)   2 SCC  746   and   Peerless  General
Finance and Investment Co. Ltd Vs. Reserve Bank
Page   83  of   107

of   India   reported   in   (1992)   2   SCC   343 ,   it   is   finally
observed   and   held   that   the   power   conferred   on   the
Governor   to   deal   with   the   scheduled   areas   is   not
meant   to   prevail   over   the   Constitution.   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. It has to be exercised subject to Part III
and other  provisions of the Constitution.  It is further
observed   and   held   that   when   Para   5   of   the   Fifth
Schedule   confers   power   on   the   Governor,   it   is   not
meant to confer an 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.   The
powers are not in derogation but in the furtherance of
Page   84  of   107

the   Constitutional   aims   and   objectives.   (para   78).
While   holding   so,   the   Constitutional   Bench   also
considered the effect of the non­obstante clause used
in para 5(1) of the Fifth Schedule of the Constitution.
While   considering   the   effect   of   the   non­obstante
clause,   it   is   observed   in   para   69,   70,   74   and   75   as
under:
“ 6 9.   Para   5(1)   of   the   Fifth   Schedule   of   the
Constitution   starts   with   a   non obstante   clause.
What is the effect  of the non   obstante clause vis­a­
vis   the   applicability   to   other   provisions   of   the
Constitution?   Whether   the   provisions   of   Para   5(1)
prevail over all other provisions of the Constitution?
Whether   the   fundamental   rights   in   Part   III   of   the
Constitution   are   inapplicable   and   need   not   be
satisfied?
70.   The   provision   of   the   Fifth   Schedule   beginning
with   the   words   “notwithstanding   anything   in   this
Constitution”   cannot   be   construed   as   taking   away
the   provision   outside   the   limitations   on   the
amending   power   and   has   to   be   harmoniously
construed   consistent   with   the   foundational
principles   and   the   basic   features   of   the
Constitution.
XXXXXXXXXXXX
74.   The   non obstante   clause   contained   in  Para   5(1)
of the Fifth  Schedule of the Constitution means the
Governor   can   exercise   power   in   spite   of   the
provisions   contained   in   Article   245   of   the
Constitution, conferring the power upon Parliament
to   make   laws   and   the   legislature   of   the   State.   The
Parliament   has   the   power   to   enact   the   law.   It
cannot   be   questioned   on   the   ground   that   it   would
have extra territorial operation.
Page   85  of   107

75.   The   non obstante   clause   has   also   been
considered   in   Smt.   Parayankandiyal   Eravath
Kanapravan   Kalliani   Amma   &   Ors.   v.   K.   Devi   &
Ors .,   AIR   1996   SC   1963.   The   scope   has   to   be
considered  in  the  context  and  purpose   for   which   it
has been carved out.”
18.5. As   observed   herein   above,   we   are   also   of   the   opinion
that the non­obstante clause contained in para 5(1) of
the   Fifth   Schedule   of   the   Constitution   shall   be   read
with   respect   to   power   of   the   Governor   to   suspend
and/or modify the law made by the Parliament despite
Articles   244   and   245   of   the   Constitution   of   India.   It
cannot   be   read   as   conferring   upon   the   Governor
absolute   power   and/or   unfettered   power,
notwithstanding the provisions contained in Part III of
the Constitution.
19. While   answering   question   no.2   viz.   whether   100%
reservation   is   permissible   under   the   Constitution,
after   referring   to   and   /   or   considering   various
decisions of this Court on 100% reservation and after
considering Articles 14, 15 and 16 and other  relevant
Constitutional   provisions   and   after   taking   into
Page   86  of   107

consideration   decision   of   this   Court   in   the   case   of
Indra   Sawhney   (supra) ,  it  is  ultimately  observed  and
held   that   the   reservation   that   is   permissible   by
protective   mode,   by   making   it   100   percent   would
become discriminatory and impermissible. It is further
observed   and   held   that   the   opportunity   of   public
employment   cannot   be   denied   unjustly   to   the
incumbents, and it is not the prerogative of a few. 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.
19.1. Thus,   in   the   case   of   Chebrolu   Leela   Prasad   Rao
(supra) ,   after   considering   the   relevant   Constitutional
provisions   in   detail   including   the   powers   of   the
Governor   conferred   in  para   5(1)   of   the   Fifth   Schedule
of   the   Constitution   of   India,   it   is   ultimately   observed
and held as under:
“ 166.   We answer the questions referred to us thus:
Page   87  of   107

Question   No.1:   The   Governor   in   the   exercise   of
powers   under   Para   5(1),   Fifth   Schedule   of   the
Constitution,   can   exercise   the   powers   concerning
any   particular   Act   of   the   Parliament   or   the
legislature   of   the   State.   The   Governor   can   direct
that   such   law   shall   not   apply   to   the   Scheduled
Areas   or   any   part   thereof.   The   Governor   is
empowered   to   apply   such   law   to   the   Scheduled
Area   or   any   part   thereof   in   the   State   subject   to
such   exceptions   and   modifications   as   he   may
specify   in   the   notification   and   can   also   issue   a
notification with retrospective effect.
Question   No.1(a):   The   Governor   is   empowered
under Para 5(1), Fifth Schedule of the Constitution,
to   direct   that   any   particular   Act   of   Parliament   or
the   Legislature   of   the   State,   shall   not   apply   to   a
Scheduled   Area   or   apply   the   same   with   exceptions
and   modifications.   The   Governor   can   make   a
provision   within   the   parameters   of   amendment/
modification   of   the   Act   of   Parliament   or   State
legislature.   The   power   to   make   new
laws/regulations,   is   provided   in   Para   5(2),   Fifth
Schedule   of   the   Constitution   for   the   purpose
mentioned therein, not under Para 5(1) of the Fifth
Schedule to the Constitution of India.
Question No.1(b): The power of the Governor under
Para   5(1),   Fifth   Schedule   to   the   Constitution   does
not   extend   to   subordinate   legislation,   it   is   with
respect  to an Act enacted in the sovereign  function
by   the   Parliament   or   legislature   of   the   State   which
can be dealt with.
Question No.1(c): The Governor’s power under Para
5(1)   of   the   Fifth   Schedule   to   the   Constitution   is
subject   to   some   restrictions,   which   have   to   be
observed by the Parliament or the legislature of the
State   while   making   law   and   cannot   override   the
fundamental rights guaranteed under Part III of the
Constitution.
Question   No.1(d):   In   exercise   of   power   under   Para
5(1)   of   the   Fifth   Schedule   to   the   Constitution   of
India, the Governor cannot override the notification
issued   by   the   President   in   the   exercise   of   powers
under   Article   371D. The   power   has   to   be   exercised
harmoniously   with   such   an   order   issued   under
Page   88  of   107

Article 371D , not in conflict thereof.
Question   No.2:   G.O.Ms.   No.3/2000   providing   for
100   per   cent   reservation   is   not   permissible   under
the   Constitution,   the   outer   limit   is   50   per   cent   as
specified in Indra Sawhney (supra).
Question   No.3:   The   notification   in   question   cannot
be   treated   as   classification   made   under Article
16(1). Once   the   reservation   has   been   provided   to
Scheduled   Tribes   under   Article   16(4 ),   no   such
power   can   be   exercised   under   Article   16(1).   The
notification   is   violative   of   Articles   14   and   16(4)   of
the Constitution of India.
Question   No.4   :   The   conditions   of   eligibility   in   the
notification   with   a   cut­off   date   i.e.   26­1­1950,   to
avail   the   benefits   of   reservation,   is   unreasonable
and arbitrary one.”
20. Applying   law   laid   down   by   the   Constitution   Bench   of
this Court in the case of   Chebrolu  Leela Prasad   Rao
(supra) ,   to   the   facts   of   the   case   on   hand,   the
impugned   Order/  Notification   No.5938  and   the   Order
No.5939 dated 14.07.2016 providing 100% reservation
for   the   local   residents   of   concerned   Scheduled
Districts/ Areas only can be said to be 
(1)   beyond   the   scope   and   ambit   of   powers   conferred
upon   the   Governor   under   para   5(1)   of   the   Fifth
Schedule of the Constitution of India; 
Page   89  of   107

(2) 100% reservation provided for the local residents of
the concerned Scheduled Districts / Areas only would
be violative of Article 16(2) of the Constitution of India
and  affecting  rights  of  the other  candidates /  citizens
of   non­scheduled   areas   /   Districts   guaranteed   under
Part III of the Constitution of India; 
(3) the exercise of powers by the Governor under para
5(1) of  the  Fifth  Schedule  of the  Constitution  of  India
modifying   Recruitment   Rules,  2015  which   are  framed
under   Article   309   of   the   Constitution   of   India   which
can   be   said   to   be   subordinate   legislation   and   cannot
be   said   to   be   an   Act   or   the   Law   made   by   the
Parliament   and   /   or   State   Legislature   is   beyond   the
scope and ambit of Governor’s  power  under   para  5(1)
of the Fifth Schedule of the Constitution of India .
21. The submission on behalf of the appellants and State
that the decision of this Court in the case of  Chebrolu
Leela   Prasad   Rao   (supra)   shall   not   be   applicable   to
the facts of the case on hand inasmuch as in the said
case   there   was   100%   reservation   for   Scheduled   Tribe
Page   90  of   107

candidates which was held to be violating the rights of
the   other   reserved   category   candidates   also   and   that
the   decision   of   this   Court   in   the   case   of   Chebrolu
Leela   Prasad   Rao   (supra)   is   required   to   be
reconsidered   is   concerned  has   no  substance.   What   is
required   to   be   considered   is   the   ratio   decidendi   and
law   laid   down   by   this   Court.   There   is   clear   law   laid
down   by   Constitution   Bench   of   this   Court   as   noted
above.   The decision of the Constitution  Bench which
is   rendered   after   considering   the   relevant
constitutional provisions and a number of decisions of
this Court is as such binding on us. It cannot be said
that   the   relevant   Constitutional   provisions   and/or
binding   decisions   of   this   Court   have   not   been   dealt
with   and/or   considered   by   this   Court.   The
Constitutional   Bench   decision   of   this   Court   in   the
case   of   Chebrolu   Leela   Prasad   Rao   (supra)   also
cannot   be   said   to   be   per   incuriam         ignoring   and/or
taking   a   contrary   view   than   any   of   the   binding
decision of this Court. As such and as observed herein
Page   91  of   107

above, we reiterate that  we are bound by  the law laid
down  by  this Court, more particularly, a Constitution
Bench decision of this Court. We see no reason not to
follow the binding Constitution Bench decision of this
Court   in   the   case   of   Chebrolu   Leela   Prasad   Rao
(supra) . We see no reason to take a different view than
the view taken by the Constitution Bench of this court
in the case of  Chebrolu Leela Prasad Rao (supra) . We
also   see   no   reason   to   refer   the   matter   to   a   Larger
Bench as prayed by some of the counsel appearing on
behalf of the appellants – candidates belonging  to the
Scheduled Areas/ Districts.
22. One   other   submission   which   is   made   by   the   learned
Advocate   General   appearing   on   behalf   of   the   State
before   the   High   Court   was   that   in   order   to   overcome
the   factors   of   low   human   development   indices,
backwardness, poverty etc., in the scheduled districts
and   to   secure   justice   ­  social,   economic  and   political,
the   notification   was   issued   by   the   Governor   of   the
State   for   protecting   the   interests   of   the   residents   in
Page   92  of   107

the scheduled districts. That even otherwise, it would
be   of   immense   benefit   to   the   school­going   children   in
the scheduled districts, if they are taught in their own
tribal   language   by   the   local   teachers,   than   the
outsiders,   who   may   not   be   well   conversant   with   the
local   language.     At   the   outset,   it   is   required   to   be
noted   that   such   submission   was   not   pressed   into
service   heavily   by   any   of   the   counsel   appearing   on
behalf   of   the   appellants   before   the   High   Court.
However, it is to be noted that in the case of  Chebrolu
Leela   Prasad   Rao   (supra)   the   Constitution   Bench   of
this   Court   also   considered   the   very   submission   and
negated   the   same   by   observing   in   para   130   and   131
as under:
“ 130. No law mandates that only tribal teachers can
teach in the scheduled areas; thus, the action defies
the   logic.   Another   reason   given   is   the   phenomenal
absenteeism   of   teachers   in   schools.   That   could   not
have   been   a   ground   for   providing   100   percent
reservation   to   the   tribal   teachers   in   the   areas.   It   is
not the case that incumbents of other categories are
not   available   in   the   areas.   When   a   district   is   a   unit
for the employment, the ground applied for providing
reservation   for   phenomenal   absenteeism   is
irrelevant   and   could   not   have   formed   the   basis   for
providing   100   percent   reservation.   The   problem   of
absenteeism   could   have   been   taken   care   of   by
providing better facilities and other incentives.
Page   93  of   107

131.   The   reason   assigned   that   reservation   was   to
cover   impetus   in   the   scheduled   areas   in   the   field   of
education   and   to   strengthen   educational
infrastructure is also equally bereft of substance. By
depriving opportunity to the others, it cannot be said
that any impetus could have been given to the cause
of   students   and   effective   education,   and   now   that
could have been strengthened. The provisions of 100
percent   reservation   are   ignoring   the   merit.   Thus,   it
would   weaken   the   educational   infrastructure   and
the merit and the standard of education imparted in
the   schools.   Educational   development   of   students
cannot   be   made   only   by   a   particular   class   of
teachers   appointed   by   providing   reservation,
ignoring   merit   in   toto.   The   ideal   approach   would   be
that teachers are selected based on merit.”
22.1. Even   otherwise,   it   is   to   be   noted   that   it   may   be   true
that  so far  as basic education  (at the level of  primary
section)   is   concerned,   it   may   help   student   at   the
primary   level   (while   providing   basic   education)   to   be
taught   in   their   own   tribal   language.     But   the   same
principle   may   not   be   applicable   when   question   is   of
providing   education   at   higher   level   viz.   above   5 th
standard.   Therefore,   if   the   candidates   belonging   to
other areas (non­Scheduled Areas/ Districts) are given
an opportunity to impart education (who may be more
meritorious   than   the   candidates   belonging   to   the
Scheduled   Areas   /   Districts)   than   it   will   be   more
beneficial   to   the   students   belonging   to   the   Scheduled
Page   94  of   107

Areas and their quality of the education shall certainly
improve.   The   quality   of   education   of   the   school­going
children   cannot   be   compromised   by   giving   100%
reservation in favour of the teachers of the same/some
districts   and   prohibiting   the   appointment   to   more
meritorious teachers.
23. At   this   stage,   it   is   required   to   be   noted   that   even   the
impugned   Order/Notification   dated   14.07.2016   and
the   advertisement   providing   100%   reservations   for
local   residents   of   concerned   Scheduled
Areas/Districts can be said to be violative of Article 13
of   the   Constitution   of   India   also.   As   observed   herein
above, the impugned Order/Notification making 100%
reservation   for   the   local   resident   of   the   concerned
Scheduled   Districts/Areas   is   violative   of   Article   16(2)
of   the   Constitution   of   India   as   it   affects   the
fundamental   rights   guaranteed   to   the   candidate
belonging   to   the   non­Scheduled   Areas   guaranteed
under   part   III   of   the   Constitution   of   India.   As   per
Article 13 of the Constitution  of India, the State shall
Page   95  of   107

not   make   any   law   which   takes   away   or   abridges   the
rights   conferred   by   this   Part   and   any   law   made   in
contravention of Article 13(2) shall to the extent of the
contravention,   be   void.   Therefore,   also   impugned
Notification/Order/Advertisement   making   100%
reservation   for   the   local   resident   of   the   concerned
Scheduled Areas / Districts shall be ultra vires Article
13 of the Constitution of India and shall be void. 
24. Even under Article 16(3) of the Constitution of India, it
is   the   Parliament   alone,   which   is   authorized   to   make
any  law prescribing, in regard to a class or  classes of
employment   or   appointment   to   an   office   under   the
Government of, or any local or other authority within,
a   State   of   Union   Territory,   any   requirement   as   to
residence   within   the   State   or   Union   territory   prior   to
such employment or appointment. As per Article 35 of
the   Constitution   of   India,   notwithstanding   anything
contained   in   the   Constitution,   the   Parliament   shall
have and the Legislature of a State shall  not have the
power to make laws with respect to any of the matters
Page   96  of   107

which, under clause (3) of Article 16 may be provided
for   law   made   by   Parliament.   Therefore,   impugned
Notification/Order   making   100%   reservation   for   the
local   resident   of   the   concerned   Scheduled
Area/Districts (reservation on the basis of resident) is
ultra   vires   to   Article   35   r/w   Article   16(3)   of   the
Constitution of India.
25. Applying the law laid down by this Court in the case of
Chebrolu Leela Prasad Rao (supra)  and in view of the
above discussion and for the reasons stated above, the
High Court has not committed any error in concluding
and   holding   that   the   Notification   No.5938   and   Order
No.5939   dated   14.7.2016   issued   by   the   State
Government   providing   100%   reservation   for   the   local
residents   of   concerned   Scheduled   Districts/Areas   as
being   unconstitutional   and   ultra   vires   Articles   14,
13(2),   15   and   16(2)   of   the   Constitution   of   India.   It   is
rightly   observed   and   held   that   said   Notification   and
Order   would   also   violate   Articles   16(3)   and   35(a­i)   of
the   Constitution   of   India.   The   High   Court   has   also
Page   97  of   107

rightly   observed   and   held   that   aforesaid   Notification
and Order is ultra vires to paragraph 5(1) of the Fifth
Schedule   of   the   Constitution   of   India.   We   are   in
complete   agreement   with   the   view   taken   by   the   High
Court.
26. Now,   so   far   as   the   prayer   made   on   behalf   of   the
respective   appellants   herein­   candidates   belonging   to
the   Scheduled   Districts   /   Areas   who   were   already
appointed   and   whose   appointments   are   held   to   be
illegal is concerned and their plea that the judgment of
the   High  Court  may  be  made  applicable prospectively
is concerned, the same may not be accepted. Reliance
is   placed   upon   the   order   passed   by   this   Court   in   the
case of  Chebrolu Leela Prasad Rao (supra) , by which,
even this Court saved the appointments already made
and   the   another   decision   of   this   Court   in   the   case   of
Kailash   Chand   Sharma   (supra)   is  concerned, such   a
prayer   is   not   to   be   accepted.   Once   the
Notification/Order   dated   14.07.2016   are   held   to   be
ultra   vires,   as   a   necessary   consequences,
Page   98  of   107

appointments   made   pursuant   to   such
unconstitutional   Notification/Order   shall   have   to   be
set   aside   and   such   appointments   as   such   cannot   be
regularized. As observed and held by this Court in the
case   of   Secretary,   State   of   Karnataka   and   Ors.   Vs.
Umadevi     (supra) ,   there   is   a   distinction   between
illegal  and   irregular   appointment   and   that   the   former
cannot be regularized.
26.1. Now,   so   far   as   reliance   placed   upon   the   decision   /
order   passed   by   this   Court   in   the   case   of   Chebrolu
Leela   Prasad   Rao   (supra)   (para   167   to   169)   is
concerned,   at   the   outset,   it   is   required   to   be   noted
that   before   this   Court   the   appointments   were   made
since   1986   onwards   and   such   appointments
continued   for   a   number   of   years   and   therefore,   this
Court   saved   the   appointments   already   made   which
were   continued   for   a   number   of   years.   While   saving
the   appointments   already   made   (which   as   such   were
found   to   be   illegal),   this   Court   specifically   observed
that   “in   the   peculiar   facts   and   circumstances,   the
Page   99  of   107

incumbents, who have been appointed, cannot be said
to   be   at   fault   and   they   belong   to   the   Scheduled
Tribes”.   Even   saving   of   the   appointments   was
conditional as observed in para 168.
26.2. Now,   so   far   as   reliance   placed   upon   the   decision   of
this   Court   in   the   case   of   Kailash   Chand   Sharma
(supra)   in  support  of  the  prayer   to  apply  judgment  of
the   High   Court   prospectively   and/or   to   save
appointments   already   made   is   concerned,   it   is   to   be
noted   that   in  the  said  judgment  also  in   para  47,  it  is
specifically observed by this Court that the Court has
moulded   the   relief   on   a   consideration   of   special   facts
and   circumstances   of   the   case   by   acting   within   the
framework   of   powers   vested   in   this   Court   under
Article   142   of   the   Constitution.   It   is   further   observed
that   even   the   judgment   may   not   be   treated   as   a
binding   precedent   in   any   case   that   may   arise   in
future.   Therefore,   once   this   Court   has   specifically
observed that the said judgment may not be treated as
a   binding   precedent   in   any   case   that   may   arise   in
Page   100  of   107

future,   the   said   judgment   ought   not   to   have   been
relied upon on behalf of the appellants.
26.3. In  the  present   case,  impugned  Notification  /  Order  is
of   the   year   2016.   The   TGT   recruitment   process   was
initiated   vide   advertisement   dated   28.12.2016   as
modified   on   04.02.2017   and   same   came   to   be
challenged   during   the   pendency   of   the   recruitment
process in the year 2017 itself. It is also required to be
noted   that   by   order   dated   21.2.2019   the   Division
Bench   of   the   High   Court   directed   that   notice   be
published   in   the   daily   newspapers   having   wide
circulation   about   institution   of   the   writ   petition   so
that   the   person   interested   may   intervene   in   the   writ
petition. Pursuant to such notice, several interlocutory
applications/intervener   applications   came   to   be   filed,
which   came   to   be   allowed   by   the   High   Court.
Thereafter,   by   order   dated   18.09.2019,   taking   into
consideration   the   question   of   Constitutional
importance   involved   in   the   matters,   the   Division
Bench   of   the   High   Court   referred   the   matter   to   be
Page   101  of   107

decided   by   a   Larger   Bench.   By   the   same   order   dated
18.09.2019,   the   High   Court   stayed   the   further
implementation   and   operation   of   the   impugned
Notification   No.5938   and   Order   No.5939   dated
14.7.2016, subject to the appointments already made,
if any. Thus, from the aforesaid it can be seen that the
original   writ   petitioners   are   always   vigilant   and
diligent   and   approached   the   High   Court   at   the   first
available   opportunity.   Their   valuable   right   for
consideration   of   their   cases   for   appointment   in   the
Scheduled   Districts   /   Areas   have   been   taken   away.
They   have   been   successful   before   the   High   Court.
Therefore,   in   the   facts   and   circumstance   of   the   case,
the decision relied upon on behalf of the appellants to
make   impugned   judgment   and   order   passed   by   the
High Court prospectively shall not be applicable to the
facts   of   the   case   on   hand.   In   the   facts   and
circumstances of the case, the prayer on behalf of the
appellants   herein   to   make   the   impugned   judgment
and   order   passed   by   the   High   Court   applicable
Page   102  of   107

prospectively,   deserves   to   be   rejected   and   is
accordingly rejected.
27. However,   at   the   same   time   and   in   the   facts   and
circumstances   of   the   case   and   more   particularly,   by
quashing   and   setting   aside   the   appointments   already
made there is a likelihood of more complication which
would   not   be   in   the   larger   public   interest.   Hence,   we
are  of   the   opinion  that   this  is   a  fit  case  to   mould   the
relief. Apart from the fact that the appellants herein –
selected   candidates   belonging   to   the   Scheduled
Districts/Areas   are   already   working   since   last   about
three   years,   in   case   appointments   already   made   are
not   protected   then   thousands   of   schools   in   the   State
of   Jharkhand   would   be   without   teachers   and   the
ultimate   sufferers   would   be   the   children   of   tribal
areas.   In   view   of   the   impugned   judgment   and   order
passed   by   the   High   Court,   by   which,   the   High   Court
has   held   all   the   appointments   made   in   Scheduled
Districts/Areas   illegal   and   has   further   directed   to   go
for   fresh   recruitment,   the   State   will   have   to   undergo
Page   103  of   107

fresh   recruitment   process   which   may   take
considerable time and, in the meantime, there shall be
vacancies   and   number   of   schools   in   the   tribal   areas
shall be without teachers. Therefore, the Court has to
strike a balance between the rights of the original writ
petitioners   as   well   as   persons/teachers   already
appointed   (whose   appointments   are  held  to  be  illegal)
and   also   the   public   interest.   Hence,   we   are   of   the
opinion   that   while   moulding   the   relief,   instead   of
initiating a fresh recruitment process, if directions are
issued  for   preparation   of  fresh   selection   list  based  on
revised   merit   and   based   on   already   published   cut   off
obtained   by   the   last   selected   candidate   in   each   TGT
subject against respective categories., it will meet ends
of   justice   and   striking   the   balance   between   the
competing   rights   so   that   persons   already   appointed
may not have to lose their employment/job and at the
same   time   the   candidates   belonging   to   the   non­
Scheduled   Districts/Areas   may   also   get   their
opportunity for appointment as a teacher on merits in
the Scheduled Districts/Areas. We are of the view that
Page   104  of   107

no useful purpose will be served to go in for fresh/ de
novo   recruitment   process   as   directed   by   the   High
Court in the impugned judgment and order.
28. 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
14.07.2016   as   unconstitutional   and   ultra   vires
Articles 14, 16(2), 16(3) and 35(a­i) of the Constitution
of   India.  We   are   in  complete  agreement  with   the  view
taken by the High Court. Present Appeals challenging
the impugned common judgment and order passed by
the   High   Court   are   hereby   dismissed   to   the   aforesaid
extent. 
However, at  the  same time, the  directions  issued
by   the   High   Court   in   the   impugned   judgment   and
order   while   setting   aside   all   the   appointments   made
pursuant to the Notification / Order dated 14.07.2016
and  Advertisement No.21 of 2016 dated 28.12.2016 as
modified on 04.12.2017 and to go in for fresh/ de novo
Page   105  of   107

recruitment process for the Scheduled Areas/Districts
is   hereby   modified.   It   is   now   directed   that   instead   of
fresh/ de novo  recruitment process by setting aside the
appointments   already   made   in   the   Scheduled
Districts/Areas,   the   State   shall   revise   the   merit   list
based on the already published cut off obtained by the
last   selected   candidates   in   each   TGT   subject   against
the   respective   categories   with   respect   to   entire   State
and   respective   candidates   belonging   to   the   non­
Scheduled Areas and Scheduled Areas (Districts) shall
be   adjusted   accordingly   on   the   basis   of   individual
merit   of   the   candidates.   The   present   directions   are
issued   considering   the   peculiar   facts   and
circumstances   of   the   case   and   more   particularly
considering   the   fact   that   there   are   already   vacant
posts of teachers in the State  (in both Scheduled and
non­Scheduled   Area).   We   are   of   the   view   that   if   the
appointments already made are set aside and fresh de
novo recruitment process for such posts is initiated, a
number   of   schools   in   the   Scheduled   Areas   shall   be
without any teacher which may ultimately affect larger
Page   106  of   107

public interest and education of concerned children in
the Scheduled Areas. 
Present   direction   is   issued   in   exercise   of   powers
under   Article   142   of   the   Constitution   of   India   in   the
larger public interest of Scheduled Areas/Districts. 
Present   appeals   are   partly   allowed   to   the
aforesaid   extent   modifying   the   impugned   common
judgment   and   order   passed   by   the   High   Court   as
observed herein above. 
In the facts and circumstances of the case, there
shall be no order as to costs.
……………………………… .J.
        [M.R. SHAH]
……………………………… .J.
              [B.V. NAGARATHNA] 
NEW DELHI;
AUGUST 02, 2022
Page   107  of   107