IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 3622 OF 2011
M.P.MEENA SAMAJ SEWA SANGATHAN SAMITI
APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
STATE OF M.P.& ORS. RESPONDENT(S)
WITH
CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 3623-3624 OF 2011
CIVIL APPEAL NO.3625 OF 2011
AND
CONMT.PET.(C) NO. 303 OF 2015 IN C.A. NO. 3622 OF 2011
O R D E R
(8/10/2015)
A Division Bench of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh
has quashed circulars dated 4th March, 1998, 1st April,
1998, 25th September, 1998 and 18th January, 2002 relying
upon two Constitution Bench decisions of this Court in
Marri Chandra Shekhar Rao Vs. Dean, Seth G.S. Medical
College [1990 (3) SCC 130] and Action Committee Vs. Union
of India [1994 (5) SCC 244]. The High Court has on a
careful consideration of the law declared by this Court in
the said two decisions concluded that the circulars
aforementioned run counter to the true legal position and
are therefore unsustainable. Having heard learned counsel
for the parties at some length, we see no reason to
interfere with the view taken by the High Court especially
when the legal position on the subject is authoritatively
settled by the said two Constitution Bench decisions
pronounced by this Court.
Learned counsel for the appellant however contends
that as a necessary consequence of the quashing of the
circulars, the State Government is likely to take action
against those who have benefited under the Circulars in
the matter of getting admission to educational
institutions or employment under the State against
vacancies reserved for Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe
candidates under the relevant Presidential Orders. He
further submits that this Court has in somewhat similar
circumstances granted protection to such beneficiaries on
equitable grounds as have enjoyed such benefits for a long
period of time. In support, he has placed reliance upon
the decisions of this Court in State of Maharashtra Vs.
Milind & Ors. [2001 (1) SCC 4), Kavita Solunke Vs.
State
of Maharashtra & Ors. [2012 (8) SCC 430] and R.
Unnikrishnan & Anr. Vs. V.K. Mahanudevan & Ors.
[2014 (4)
SCC 434]. It is urged that while disposing of these
appeals this Court could direct grant of similar benefits
to candidates who are similarly situate to protect them
against any harassment arising out of their ouster.
It is in our opinion premature for this Court to
issue any such general direction. The proper course for
those against whom the State Government may initiate
action based on the judgment impugned in these appeals
would be to seek redress in accordance with law in which
event they may on the analogy of decisions relied upon by
learned counsel for the appellants claim whatever benefits
they think they are entitled to claim. That is because
whether or not a candidate qualifies for the grant of any
benefit by way of protection against ouster will depend
upon the facts and circumstances of each case. It is
neither necessary nor proper for us in these proceedings
to either assume the fact situation or issue any general
directions regardless of the circumstances in which the
State may propose to oust or terminate the service of any
such candidate. Reserving liberty for all such
individuals as are likely to be affected by any adverse
action which the Government may take to seek redress in
accordance with law, we dismiss these appeals. We make it
clear that we have not expressed any final opinion as to
the entitlement of any such person to the protection being
claimed by the appellant which aspect is left open to be
determined by the court concerned at the appropriate stage
in appropriate proceedings.
Parties are left to bear their own costs.
CONMT.PET.(C) NO. 303/2015 IN C.A. NO. 3622/2011
In the light of the order passed in civil appeals we
see no reason to proceed any further, in this contempt
petition which is hereby dismissed.
All interim orders shall stand vacated.
...........................J
[T.S. THAKUR]
...........................J
[KURIAN JOSEPH]
October 8, 2015
New Delhi.
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
Civil Appeal No(s). 3622/2011
M.P.MEENA SAMAJ SEWA SANGATHAN SAMITI Appellant(s)
VERSUS
STATE OF M.P.& ORS. Respondent(s)
WITH
C.A. No. 3623-3624/2011
(With Interim Relief and Office Report)
C.A. No. 3625/2011
(With Interim Relief and Office Report)
CONMT.PET.(C) No. 303/2015 In C.A. No. 3622/2011
(With appln.(s) for exemption from filing O.T. and Office
Report)
Date : 08/10/2015 These appeals were called on for hearing
today.
CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.S. THAKUR
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KURIAN JOSEPH
For Appellant(s)
Mr. Vivek K. Tankha, Sr. Adv.
Mr. D. Kumanan, Adv.
Mr. B.K. Satija, Adv.
Mr. Niraj Sharma,Adv.
Mr. B. S. Banthia,Adv.
For Respondent(s)
Mr. B. S. Banthia,Adv.
Mr. A. S. Bhasme,Adv.
Mr. Rajesh Singh,Adv.
Mr. Saurabh Mishra,Adv.
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
O R D E R
The civil appeals as well as contempt petition are
dismissed in terms of the signed order.
Pending applications, if any, are also disposed of
accordingly.
(Ashok Raj Singh) (Veena Khera)
Court Master Court Master
(Signed
Order is placed in the file)
No comments:
Post a Comment