Supreme Court states that 'a Person is entitled to claim the benefit of reservation in either of the successor States but would not be entitled to claim the privileges and benefits of reservation simultaneously in both the States'

The Supreme Court in the case of Pankaj Kumar vs. State of Jharkhand & Ors has held that that a person is entitled to claim benefit of reservation in either of the successor State of Bihar or State of Jharkhand, but will not entitled to claim benefit of reservation simultaneously in both the successor States and those who are members of the reserved category and are resident of the successor State of Bihar, while participating in open selection in State of Jharkhand shall be treated to be migrants and it will be open to participate in general category without claiming the benefit of reservation and vice-versa. Further it has been clarified that, the person is entitled to claim the benefit of reservation in either of the successor State of Bihar or State of Jharkhand but would not be entitled to claim the privileges and benefits of reservation simultaneously in both the States and if that is permitted, it will defeat the mandate of Articles 341(1) and 342(1) of the Constitution. The appellant Pankaj Kumar was denied appointment in Scheduled Caste (SC) quota in the Civil Service Exam in the state of Jharkhand on the ground that his permanent address proof showed him as a resident of Patna, Bihar. It was his case that he was born and brought up in those areas of the erstwhile state of unified Bihar, which later became the part of Jharkhand. While a single bench of the High Court allowed his claim for appointment in SC quota in Jharkhand, the division bench set aside an appeal by the state. The appellants argued that they cannot be treated as migrants from Bihar to Jharkhand rather it was a case of them happening to be in the successor state after the bifurcation of the unified state. Since the President's order notifying Scheduled Castes for Jharkhand includes their castes as well, there was no rationale in excluding them. The bench said that the collective readings of the provisions of the Bihar Reorganisation Act, 2000, makes it apparent that such persons whose place of origin/domicile on or before the appointed day (November 15, 2000) was of Bihar now falling within the districts/regions which form a successor State, that is Jharkhand under Section 3 of the Act, 2000 became ordinary resident of the State of Jharkhand. At the same time, so far as the employees who were in public employment in Bihar on or before November 15, 2000, apart from those who have domicile of either of the district which became part of Jharkhand, such employees who have exercised their option to serve in Jharkhand their existing service conditions shall stands protected by virtue of Section 73 of the Act, 2000. The Court is of the view that Pankaj Kumar would be entitled to claim the benefit of reservation including the privileges and benefits admissible to the members of SC category in Jharkhand for all practical purposes including participation in open competition seeking public employment.