The Supreme Court in Satyajit Kumar and others versus State of Jharkhand and others quashed a notification of the Jharkhand Government granting 100% Reservation to the local residents in scheduled areas.
The Court also heavily relied upon a judgement passed by the Constitution Bench of Supreme Court in 2020 in the case of Chebrolu Leela Prasad Rao and others v/s State of Andhra Pradesh, by which the 100% reservation given for Scheduled Tribes members in teaching posts in Scheduled Areas in Andhra Pradesh was struck down as unconstitutional. In this case, the High Court had held that the Notification and the Order are violative of Articles 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.
After hearing extensive submissions from all the stakeholders of the case, the Court noted that broadly there are 3 issues that needed to be addressed:-
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) ?
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 ?
Whether the order/notification making 100 percent reservation for the local resident of the concerned scheduled districts/areas is violative of Article 16(2) of the Constitution of India?
Referring to the Chreebolu Leela Prasad judgement, the Court observed that:-
“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.
The Constitution Bench had further noted 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 Constitutional aims and objectives.”
The Court further stated 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.
Therefore, the Court directed that “Once the Notification/Order dated 14.07.2016 are held to be ultra vires, as a necessary consequence, appointments made pursuant to such unconstitutional Notification/Order shall have to be set aside and such appointments as such cannot be regularised.”