Daily Legal Updates for Law Exams: 6th January 2022

1. SC-ST Person Who Is Ordinary Resident Of One State Can't Claim Quota Benefits In State To Which He Migrated : Supreme Court

• The Supreme Court observed that 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.

• The court noted that as per Section 42 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955, there is a restriction on sale, gift or bequest by a member of Scheduled Caste in favour of a person, who is not a member of Scheduled Caste. This provision is to protect a member of the Scheduled Caste belonging to the very State he belongs to, the bench comprising Justices MR Shah and AS Bopanna observed.

• The issue thus before the Apex Court in the appeal filed by plaintiff was whether a person, who is a member of Scheduled Caste in Punjab, where he is residing, can claim the benefit of Scheduled Caste in Rajasthan in relation to Section 42 of the Rajasthan Colonization Act, 1954?

• Referring to the decisions in Marri Chandra Shekar Rao Vs. Dean, Geth G.S. Medical College and Others, (1990) 3 SCC 130 and Action Committee on Issue of Caste Certificate to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes in the State of Maharashtra and Another Vs. Union of India and Another, (1994) 5 SCC 244 and subsequent judgments, the bench comprising Justices MR Shah and AS Bopanna observed.

Source: Bar & Bench

2. NEET PG- Postgraduate Admissions Must Be Completely Merit-Based, Reservation Must Be Minimal: Shyam Divan To Supreme Court

• In connection with the EWS/OBC reservation in NEET-AIQ, Senior Advocate Shyam Divan, on Wednesday, told the Supreme Court that Postgraduate admissions must be completely merit-based and reservation must be minimal.

• Appearing for petitioners focused on NEET-PG, Mr. Diwan with AOR Vivek Singh concentrated his submissions on the 27% OBC reservation.

• "Since we are dealing with postgraduate courses, reservation has to be minimal and admission has to be completely merit-based. In Preeti Srivastava's case, Your Lordships have observed that 'the level of superspecialisation there cannot be any reservation because any dilution of merit at this level would adversely affect the national goal of having the best possible people at the highest levels of professional and educational training. At the level of a super speciality, something more than a mere professional competence as a doctor is required. A super-specialist acquires expert knowledge in his speciality and is expected to possess exceptional competence and skill in his chosen field, where he may even make an original contribution in the form of new innovative techniques or new knowledge to fight diseases. It is in public interest that we promote these skills. Such high degrees of skill and expert knowledge in highly specialised areas, however, cannot be acquired by anyone or everyone. Indicated Mr. Divan to the bench of Justices D. Y. Chandrachud and A. S. Bopanna.

• "In many situations, the postgraduate course is the end of the road and the super-speciality in that particular branch, that particular department. Although there may be certain super-specialities which may go up one tier etc., this principle of super-speciality also applies so far as post-graduates are concerned", he submitted.

• The rules of the game cannot be changed belatedly.

• An executive order cannot nullify the judgment of this court.

• "The impugned notice and executive order are contrary to the existing scheme. It is submitted that the counseling for the all India quota proceeds on the basis of the scheme approved by the Supreme Court. There should be a common counseling for admission to all post graduate courses in all medical educational institutions on the basis of the merit list of the NEET. The designated authority of counseling for 50% quota seats shall be conducted by the directorate general of health services. Such counseling, as per the existing scheme, shall be only for diploma and MD,MS courses. Neither the Central government nor the state government or, for that matter, no High Court can make any variation in the all India quota", he concluded.

• It is to be noted that as per Section 42 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955, there is a restriction on sale, gift or bequest by a member of Scheduled Caste in favour of a person, who is not a member of Scheduled Caste. Looking to the object and purpose of such a provision, it can be said that the said provision is to protect a member of the Scheduled Caste belonging to the very State he belongs i.e., in the present case the State of Rajasthan. Being a Scheduled Caste in the State of Punjab whether the sale transaction in favour of the appellant ­ original defendant could have been saved from the bar under Section 42 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 is now not res integra.

Source: Bar & Bench

3. Alapan Bandyopadhyay Case : Supreme Court Sets Aside Calcutta HC Order Which Quashed CAT Principal Bench's Transfer Order

• The Supreme Court allowed the special leave petition filed by the Centre challenging Calcutta High Court's order of setting aside the order passed by the CAT Principal bench to transfer former West Bengal Chief Secretary Alapan Bandyopadhyay's petition from Kolkata bench to New Delhi.

• The bench of Justices AM Khanwilkar and CT Ravikumar, which had reserved judgment on November 29, 2021, set aside the judgment of the Calcutta High Court which had granted relief to Bandyopadhyay. The Supreme Court held that the Calcutta High Court lacked territorial jurisdiction to set aside the transfer order passed by CAT Principal Bench at New Delhi.

• The bench however has granted liberty to Bandyopadhyay to approach the jurisdictional High Court to challenge the order of CAT Principal Bench. Justice CT Ravikumar read out the operative portion of the judgment in Court today morning. Full copy of the judgment is awaited.

• A bench comprising Justices AM Khanwilkar and CT Ravikumar reserved the judgment after hearing Solicitor General of India Tushar Mehta, who appeared for the Central Government and Senior Advocate Dr Abhishek Manu Singhvi, who appeared for Bandyopadhyay.

• The Solicitor General had assured the bench that no precipitative action will be taken against Bandyopadhyay till the Court delivers the judgment.

• Alapan Bandyopadhyay had created headlines in May, following his refusal to attend a meeting chaired by the Prime Minister in Kolkata in the wake of cyclone disaster. Soon after that, the Central Government recalled him to Delhi. Before that order took effect, the civil servant tendered his resignation. Later, disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him, which he challenged before the Kolkata Bench of the CAT. The CAT Principal Bench passed an order in Centre's application to transfer Bandyopadhyay's application from Kolkata to New Delhi. The transfer order was set aside by the Calcutta High Court. While passing the judgment, the High Court made certain adverse remarks against the Union Government and the CAT Principal Bench.

• The Solicitor General had submitted that the Calcutta High Court lacked the territorial jurisdiction to set aside the order of transfer passed by the CAT Chairperson located in New Delhi. The SG replied that this issue could be raised only by the Delhi High Court, which has jurisdiction over CAT Principal Bench, and not the Calcutta High Court.

• The Solicitor General had also taken objection to the adverse remarks made by the High Court against the Union of India and the CAT Chairperson.

 Source: Bar & Bench