Sign In / Register
Make This My Home Page | Feedback |RSS
You are here: IE »   Story

Migrant SCs, STs, OBCs not entitled to reservation: SC

  • Print
  • Mail This Article
  • Comments
  • Add to favorites
  • SC
    SCs, STs and OBCs cannot claim the benefits of reservation if they migrate from one state to another.

    SCs, STs and OBCs cannot claim the benefits of reservation if they migrate from one state to another if the caste/tribe to which they belong are not recognized as a reserved community in the adopted state, the Supreme Court has ruled.

    Further, a migrant SC or ST also cannot claim a reserved status in OBC quota in another state, the apex court said.

    "Persons belonging to a particular caste or tribe may suffer disadvantages in one state but may not suffer the same disadvantages in the other. Our Constitutional scheme, therefore, seeks to identify the social and economic backwardness of people having regard to the state or union territory as a unit.

    "The same principle applies to even minorities as has been laid down by an eleven-judge bench of this court in T M A Pai Foundation and others case," a bench of Justices S B Sinha and Cyriac Joseph observed.

    Ads by Google

    The apex court made the remarks while dismissing pleas by certain migrant SC, STs candidates challenging the refusal of the Delhi administration to grant them benefits of reservation in Government jobs.

    avoidable !By: chanakya | 19-Aug-2009 Reply | Forward Caste system in India is complex and there is no near sight where people will work for demolition of this system. The same system was / is criticised for supressing miilions of people for centuries, but in today's context people are just not inclined to give up the benefits of such system. So it goes on far few more centuries, if democarcy survives till then . Else the same devil which was nourished by several self centred parties will play havoc with individual state population. Non-democratic set ups many not be all that kind towards the concessions based on minority and caste considerations. Earlier these sections come out of this myth, better would be for these sections which are being exploited by cunning politicians for their own selfish goals.
    No reservations----By: romesh.sharma | 18-Aug-2009 Reply | Forward Though this sounds to be a joke done by judiciary but to me its fallability of moral judgement.Just by crossing the inter-state borders can't change a person's origin and identity.What the SC has to do is make a Law which is effective and valid for whole Nation which will be the first small step to unite people and give them feeling of equality atleast within their own community.Such law will keep people confined to places they are born and won't have the opportunity to learn others.Let India be free to all without such impositions.There are places in India where to buy property or settle or even to visit is not allowed or got to have special permission.Such laws and restriction are the major cause of separatistic movements.Lately this is often seen the SC is meddling into the things which are non of their concern.Judiciary must stay out of political and religious influences.
    ENGINEERBy: Indian | 18-Aug-2009 Reply | Forward WHY SUPREMECOURT IS NOT RULING THAT THE CONVERTED SC,ST
    Those vitims of Khnadmal , Orrissa spraed accross nation are under the protection of lawBy: T.Arulmony | 18-Aug-2009 Reply | Forward Sure this kind of Judgment even will help those who migrated from own land due to prosecution. The prosecution took place in Kahndamal , Orrisa evicted many native people from their own places and new they are living different parts of India. Many have not come back to their own place due to the fear of fundamentalists and lack of houses in their own village. These people lost all their asserts and no proof to prove their caste in the place where they now live? What remedy to identify these kinds of victims and ensure the provision available in India under caste category .
    OTHER STATES' RESERVATIONSBy: CA MAHESH | 18-Aug-2009 Reply | Forward THAT IS VERY GOOD DECISION. BUT IT IS NOT CLEAR WHETHER THE BENEFIT WOULD BE THERE IF THE SAME CASTE IS ALSO COVERED IN THE ADOPTED STATE. E.G. IF CASTE "A" IS OBC IN UP AND PERSON HAS MIGRATED TO DEHLI AND IN DEHLI CASTE "A" IS ALSO IN OBC LIST, WILL HE BE ENTITLED FOR THE RESERVATION OR NOT FOR THE "A" CASTE. PLS SOMBEODY CLARIFY THE POINT
    Post a Comment
    Name:
    Email:
    Title:
    Maximum characters allowed     
    Comment:
    TERMS OF USE:
    The views, opinions and comments posted are your, and are not endorsed by this website. You shall be solely responsible for the comment posted here. The website reserves the right to delete, reject, or otherwise remove any views, opinions and comments posted or part thereof. You shall ensure that the comment is not inflammatory, abusive, derogatory, defamatory &/or obscene, or contain pornographic matter and/or does not constitute hate mail, or violate privacy of any person (s) or breach confidentiality or otherwise is illegal, immoral or contrary to public policy. Nor should it contain anything infringing copyright &/or intellectual property rights of any person(s).
    I agree to the terms of use.