ARUN KUMAR, J. - (1.) WITH the promulgation of the Punjab Re-organisation Act 1966 in place of erstwhile State of Punjab, three States viz. Punjab, Haryana and Himachal Pradesh were carved out while Chandigarh became a union territory. Under Article 239 of the Constitution of India the union territories are administered by the President of India acting through an administrator to be appointed by him. But this does not mean that the union territories become merged with the Central government. They are centrally administered but they retain their independent entity. On formation of the union territory of Chandigarh, its employees were governed by the rules/instructions as applicable to the Central government employees in view of Service of Union territory Employees Rules 1966. In the present case these facts have become relevant for the reason that the Chandigarh administration issued an advertisement inviting applications for fourteen posts of Assistant Sub-Inspectors in the Chandigarh Police. Two posts were meant for Scheduled Castes (for short "SC") and four posts for Other Backward Classes (for short "OBC") candidates. Respondents 1 to 5 were applicants for the said posts in pursuance of the advertisement. Respondents 1 and 2 were SC candidates while respondents 3 to 5 were ORC candidates. These respondents had caste certificates issued by their respective States i.e. Punjab, Haryana and Himachal Pradesh. On the basis of the caste certificates held by them the respondents sought the benefit of reservation but the same was denied to them. This led them to approach the Central Administrative Tribunal at Chandigarh. The tribunal vide its order dated 23.2.2000 allowed the OA filed by the respondents and directed the Chandigarh administration to give appointments to the applicants if they were found to be otherwise eligible. Chandigarh administration i.e. appellants herein challenged the said order of the tribunal by way of a writ petition filed in the Punjab and Haryana High Court. The High Court dismissed the writ petition upholding the view taken by the tribunal. The present appeal is directed against the said judgment and order of the High Court.
(2.) IT is not in dispute that the government of India instructions are applicable and are being followed by the Chandigarh administration being a union territory as aforesaid. In fact, the appellants have in a rejoinder affidavit filed in this Court specifically admitted that "for the purposes of recruitment instructions issued by the government of India are being followed being not the 'condition of service'". Further it has been stated in this rejoinder affidavit in case of Recruitment Rules, the Chandigarh administration is following the ules/instructions issued by the Central government". The government of India vide its circular no. DC/16014/1/82-SC- BCD.1 dated 22.2.1985 issued instrucions to the chief secretaries of all the States and union territories to the effect that SC/ST persons who have migrated from the States of origin to other States for the purpose of seeking education/employment etc. will be deemed to be Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes of the State of their origin and will not be entitled to derive benefits from the State of their migration on that basis. The prescribed authority of a State government/union territory administration may issue the SC/STs certificate to a person who has migrated from another State on the production of genuine certificate issued to his father by the prescribed authority of the State of the father's origin. The certificates were to be issued irrespective of whether caste/tribe in question is scheduled or not in relation to the state/union territory to which the person has migrated. Para 2 of the said circular is reproduced: "IT is also clarified that a Scheduled Caste/ Schedule Tribe person who has migrated from the State of origin to some other State for seeking education, employment etc. will be deemed to be Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe of that State and will be entitled to derive benefit from the State of origin and not from the State in which he has migrated" In pursuance of the aforesaid circular of the government of India, the Home Secretary, Chandigarh administration vide his letter dated 28th July, 1986 sought clarification from the government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs as to whether these instructions are applicable in the union territory of Chandigarh. The Chandigarh administration received the following reply to the said letter from the government of India, Ministry of Welfare. No.BC.12017/9/86-SC and BCD. I(Ch.Admn.) Government of India / Bharat Sarkar Ministry of Welfare/Kalyan Mantralaya New Delhi, dated 26.8.86 JUDGEMENT_308_JT9_2003Html1.htm It will be seen from the above quoted letter of the government of India that a recognised Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe candidate of any other State or union territory was held entitled to benefit of reservation for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes in the union territory of Chandigarh. Further the said circular' leaves it to the Chandigarh administration to seek further clarification, if any, on this issue from the Department of Personnel and Training, government of India. It is the stand of the appellant that it made several efforts to seek further clarification from the Department of Personnel and Training, government of India as suggested in letter dated 26th July, 1986. However, they had not received any response in this regard.
(3.) THE Central Administrative Tribunal as, well as the High Court relying on the clarification issued by the government of India, vide its letter dated 26th July, 1986 rejected the stand of the appellant while granting relief to the respondents. According to the learned counsel for the appellants the letter dated 22nd February, 1985 of the government of India holds the field and is binding on the Chandigarh administration and, therefore, the respondents not being SC/OBC candidates of the union territory of Chandigarh are not entitled to the benefit of reservation. The, learned counsel has also placed reliance on certain decisions of this Court in support of her stand that the benefit of belonging to SC/ST/OBC is available only in the State of origin and not in the State to which the person concerned migrates. In other words the benefit of being a SCI ST/OBC can be enjoyed by a person only in the State to which he belongs. He cannot derive this benefit in the State to which he or she migrates.;