Relation to State

Constitution Bench of this Court in Marri Chandra Shekhar Rao, (1990) 3 SCC 130 had an occasion to examine, whether Scheduled Castes in relation to a particular State would be entitled to benefits or concessions allowed to Scheduled Castes in matters of education/employment in another State. Court observed, if such a contention is to be accepted, the very expression “in relation to that State” would lose its significance.

Marri Chandra Shekhar Rao was further followed by another Constitution Bench of this Court in Action Committee on Issue of Caste Certificate to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes in  State of Maharashtra, (1994) 5 SCC 244 which further came to be followed by another Constitution Bench of this Court in Bir Singh, (2018) 10 SCC 312.

So far as involuntary migration from one State to another State is concerned, Marri Chandra Shekhar Rao left it for Legislature or Parliament.

In relation to Backward Classes, M.C.D. v. Veena, (2001) 6 SCC 571 specifically held, migrants are not entitled for reservation as Other Backward Classes (OBCs) in States/Union Territories where they have migrated.

It has been settled, Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes/OBCs of a State, on migration to another State voluntarily or involuntarily, will not be entitled to claim benefits of reservation. If permitted, the very expression as mandated under Articles 341(1) and 342(1) of the Constitution “in relation to that State” would become otiose.

In the instant case, we are not examining voluntary or involuntary migration of SCs/STs/OBCs from State ‘A’ to State ‘B’.

Hon’ble Justice Ajay Rastogi, Pankaj Kumar v. State of Jharkhand, [Civil Appeal No. 4864 of 2021].