The Supreme Court on Wednesday ruled that a person, who is declared either a Scheduled Caste and Schedule Tribe in one state, cannot claim benefit of education, land allotment or employment, after migrating to another state.
A bench of Justices M.R. Shah and A.S. Bopanna said: “A person belonging to Scheduled Caste /Scheduled Tribe in relation to his original state of which he is permanent or an ordinarily resident cannot be deemed to be so in relation to any other state on his migration to that state for the purpose of employment, education etc.”
It also said the apex court’s judgement in ‘Action Committee on Issue of Caste Certificate to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes in the State of Maharashtra and Another’ (1994) would apply with full force in the present case.
The top court noted that the appellant – original defendant being a SC belonging to Punjab, being an ordinarily and permanent resident of the state, cannot claim the benefit of a SC in Rajasthan for the purpose of purchase of the land belonging to a SC person of Rajasthan, which was given to original allottee as SC landless person.
“Therefore, as rightly held by the Division Bench of the High Court, the sale transaction in favour of the appellant – original defendant was in clear breach and/or in violation of Section 42 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955,” it said, dismissing an appeal filed by Bhadar Ram through his legal representative challenging the Rajasthan High Court’s division bench order of April 7, 2011.
The submission on behalf of the appellant that the Action Committee decision will not be applicable to the facts of the case on hand as in that case, the court was considering the issue with respect to employment, and education and in the present case, dispute is with respect to sale of property has no substance and cannot be accepted, the court said.
“We see no reason to restrict the applicability of the decision of this court in the case of ‘Action Committee’ only with respect to employment, education or the like and not to make applicable the same with respect to purchase and sale of the property,” the court held.