Chandigarh Housing Board vs. Tarsem Lal [February 07, 2024]
The Chandigarh Housing Board (CHB) issued an advertisement in June 1983 inviting applications for allotment of High Income Group (HIG) houses reserved for Scheduled Castes (SC) and Scheduled Tribes (ST) under Regulation 25 of the Chandigarh Housing Board (Allotment, Management and Sale of Tenements) Regulations, 1979. Tarsem Lal, claiming ST status as recognized in Rajasthan and residing in Chandigarh for over twenty years, applied for a house under the ST quota. While the draw of lots was held and some houses allotted, four ST-category houses were kept in abeyance. Tarsem Lal filed a suit seeking a declaration that he was entitled to allotment under the ST quota.
Key Legal Issue
The central issue was whether a person recognized as a Scheduled Tribe in another State (Rajasthan) but residing in Chandigarh could claim the benefit of reservation for STs in Chandigarh, despite there being no Presidential notification under Article 342 of the Constitution declaring any community as ST in the Union Territory of Chandigarh.
Arguments
Tarsem Lal: Argued that he was eligible for allotment under the ST quota by virtue of his certificate from Rajasthan and long-term residence in Chandigarh.
Chandigarh Housing Board: Contended that, in the absence of a Presidential notification specifying any Scheduled Tribe for Chandigarh under Article 342, no such reservation could be availed by Tarsem Lal or anyone else in the UT.
Supreme Court’s Analysis
The Court examined the constitutional scheme under Article 342, which requires a Presidential notification for recognizing Scheduled Tribes in a particular State or Union Territory.
The Court referred to prior Constitution Bench judgments, reiterating that a person’s ST status is confined to the State or UT for which it is specified and cannot be automatically transferred to another State or UT.
The Court found that, as of the relevant period, there was no Presidential Order declaring any community as a Scheduled Tribe in Chandigarh. Thus, no ST reservation could be claimed in the UT, regardless of ST status in another State.
The Court rejected the High Court’s reliance on administrative clarifications and letters, holding that such communications cannot override the constitutional requirement of a Presidential notification.
The Court clarified that the mere fact of long-term residence or holding an ST certificate from another State does not entitle a person to reservation benefits in a different State or UT where no such community is notified as ST.
Judgment
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal of the Chandigarh Housing Board, setting aside the High Court and trial court decisions that favored Tarsem Lal. The Court held that Tarsem Lal was not entitled to allotment under the ST quota in Chandigarh, as there was no valid legal basis for such a claim in the absence of a Presidential notification under Article 342 for the UT.
Significance
This judgment reinforces the constitutional principle that reservation benefits for Scheduled Tribes are strictly limited to those communities notified for each State or Union Territory. It underscores that migration or residence in another State or UT does not confer eligibility for ST benefits unless specifically notified by the President for that region.
Citation:
Chandigarh Housing Board vs. Tarsem Lal, [2024] 2 S.C.R. 371; 2024 INSC 119, Supreme Court of India, decided on February 7, 2024.
RELATED Blog
0 comments