100 percent reservation for teachers in scheduled districts unconstitutional, compromises quality of education: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court on Tuesday held that providing 100 percent reservation in favour of teachers of scheduled districts/area is unconstitutional and compromises quality of education [Satyajit Kumar and ors vs State of Jharkhand and ors]..A Bench of Justices MR Shah and BV Nagarathna, therefore, upheld a Jharkhand High Court decision of September 2020 striking down notifications issued by the State of Jharkhand in 2016 providing 100% reservation for the local candidates / residents of thirteen Scheduled Areas in the State."The quality of education of the school-going children cannot be compromised by giving 100% reservation in favour of the teachers of the same/some districts and prohibiting the appointment to more meritorious teachers," the Supreme Court said.The Court noted that law in this regard has already been settled in precedent like Indra Sawhney and Cheebrolu Rao and reservation that is permissible by protective mode, by making it 100 percent would become discriminatory and impermissible."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," the judgment said.While the top court rejected the State's prayer to make the judgment under challenge be applied prospectively, it observed that setting aside appointments already made would be a complicated exercise not in line with larger public interest. It, accordingly, invoked its plenary powers under Article 142 to mould the relief sought by the appellant-teachers, stating," .... in case appointments already made are not protected then thousands of schools in the State of Jharkhand would be without teachers and the ultimate sufferers would be the children of tribal areas ... the Court has to strike a balance between the rights of the original writ petitioners as well as persons/teachers already appointed (whose appointments are held to be illegal) and also the public interest ... [if] fresh de novo recruitment process for such posts is initiated, a number of schools in the Scheduled Areas shall be without any teacher which may ultimately affect larger Page 106 of 107 public interest and education of concerned children in the Scheduled Areas."The High Court ruling was, thus, modified to the extent that instead of initiating a fresh recruitment process, the State is to prepare a revised merit list based on already-published cutoffs as per marks obtained by the last selected candidate in each Trained Graduate Teachers (TGT) subject..The Jharkhand High Court had, in September 2020, quashed the appointment of over 2,400 TGT teachers in Government Secondary schools of scheduled districts in the State, made pursuant to an advertisement published in 2016.The ruling came in a plea by individuals who raised the grievance that they could not be appointed in the schools situated in 13 scheduled districts in the Jharkhand because they were not the residents of the scheduled districts.The High Court had found that the challenged appointment notification, issued by the Governor of the State, had granted 100% reservation in favour of the residents of the scheduled districts, while totally ignoring the fundamental rights of citizens residing outside the scheduled districts.Such reservation, the High Court had held, was not permissible under the Constitution, as the outer limit was 50%, as specified in Indra Sawhney's case.The candidates belonging to the 13 scheduled districts then preferred the present appeal before the Supreme Court..The counsel for the State argued that the notification issued by the Governor was legally sustainable as it was in exercise of powers conferred under paragraph 5(1) of the Fifth Schedule to the Constitution of India. The same gives Governors the powers to make laws for Scheduled Areas and exclude Parliamentary laws from them. To this, the Court reasoned that the Governor cannot negatively effect the guarantee of fundamental rights. "The order/ notification making 100% reservation for the local resident of the concerned scheduled districts/areas is is violative of Article 16(2) of the Constitution of India as it affects the fundamental rights guaranteed to the candidate belonging to the non-scheduled areas guaranteed under part III of the Constitution of India. As per Article 13 of the Constitution of India, the State shall Page 95 of 107 not make any law which takes away or abridges the rights conferred by this Part and any law made in contravention of Article 13(2) shall to the extent of the contravention, be void," the Court said.The apex court cited the decision in Cheebrolu Rao to point out that Governors' powers are in not in derogation to but in furtherance of fundamental rights. .Senior Advocates Rajeev Dhavan, Vikas Singh, R Venkataramani, and Vibha Dutta Makhija appeared for the appellant-teachers. Senior Advocates Kapil Sibal and Sunil Kumar represented the State of Jharkhand; Senior Advocates Ranjit Kumar and Gopal Sankaranarayanan appeared for the contesting respondents, and Senior Advocates Ajit Kumar Sinha, Colin Gonsalves and Pallav Sisodia represented the intervenors.[Read Judgment]