SATYAJIT KUMAR & ORS. versus THE STATE OF JHARKHAND & ORS.

SATYAJIT KUMAR & ORS. versus THE STATE OF JHARKHAND & ORS.

The Notifications/Order (No.5938/5939 dated 14.07.2016) providing 100% reservation for local residents of the thirteen Scheduled Districts exceeded the Governor’s powers under paragraph 5(1) (which cannot modify subordinate rules under Article 309), violated Articles 14, 13(2), 15 and 16(2) (and were contrary to Article 16(3)/Article 35), and are therefore unconstitutional and ultra vires; appointments made pursuant to those notifications cannot be regularized, but in the public interest the Court, exercising Article 142, directed revision of merit lists based on already published cut-offs to adjust appointments rather than ordering fresh recruitment.

Parties
Appellants: Satyajit Kumar & Ors.; Respondents: The State of Jharkhand & Ors.
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
02 August 2022
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court Judgment
Outcome
partly allowed
Legal Topics
Fifth Schedule, Governor Powers, Reservation, Article 16, Article 13, Recruitment Rules, Article 309, Article 142, Residence/domicile Qualification
Constitutional Law Administrative Law Service Law Education Law Fifth Schedule Governor Powers Reservation Article 16 +5 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 20 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Satyajit Kumar & Ors.

Appellants

The State of Jharkhand & Ors.

Respondents

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether in exercise of paragraph 5(1) of the Fifth Schedule the Governor can provide for 100% reservation in Scheduled Areas/Districts affecting fundamental rights under Part III
  2. 2 Whether the Governor under paragraph 5(1) can modify Recruitment Rules framed under Article 309 (subordinate legislation)
  3. 3 Whether the impugned Notification/Order is ultra vires Articles 14, 13(2), 15, 16(2), 16(3) and Article 35 and what remedy is appropriate

Ratio Decidendi

The Notifications/Order (No.5938/5939 dated 14.07.2016) providing 100% reservation for local residents of the thirteen Scheduled Districts exceeded the Governor’s powers under paragraph 5(1) (which cannot modify subordinate rules under Article 309), violated Articles 14, 13(2), 15 and 16(2) (and were contrary to Article 16(3)/Article 35), and are therefore unconstitutional and ultra vires; appointments made pursuant to those notifications cannot be regularized, but in the public interest the Court, exercising Article 142, directed revision of merit lists based on already published cut-offs to adjust appointments rather than ordering fresh recruitment.

Court Disposition

partly allowed

Orders

  • Impugned Notification No.5938 and Order No.5939 dated 14.07.2016 (providing 100% reservation for local residents of the thirteen Scheduled Districts) declared unconstitutional and ultra vires Articles 14, 13(2), 15 and 16(2) and also violative of Article 16(3) and Article 35 and set aside
  • Appointments made pursuant to the unconstitutional Notification/Order cannot be regularized; they are to be set aside in principle