The State of Tripura & Ors. v. Jayanta Chakraborty & Ors.

ORDER D The questions posed in these cases involve the interpretation of Articles 16(4), 16(4A) and 16(4B) of the Constitution of India in the backdrop of mainly three Constitution Bench decisions - (!)Indra Sawhncv and others v, Union of India and others 1, (2) E.V Chinn:1iah v. State of A.P. and others' and (3) M. Nagaraj and E' others v. Union of India and others'. One crucially relevant aspect brought to our notice is that Nagaraj (supra) and Chinnaiah (supra) deal with the disputed subject namely backwardness of the SC/ST but Chinnaiah (supra) which came earlier in time has not been referred to in Nagaruj (supra). The question offu11hcr and finer interpretation on the application of Article I 6(4A) has also arisen in this case. Extensive F arguments have been advanced from both sides. The petitioners have argued for a re-look of Nagaraj (supra) specifically on the ground that test of backwardness ought not to be applied to SC/ST in view oflndra Sawhnev (supra) and Chinnaiah (supra). On the other hand, the counsel for the respondents haw referred to the ca,cs of Suraj Bhan Mccna G and Another v. State of Rajasthan and others': Uttar Pradesh Power '1992 Supp (3) sec 211 1 12005) 1 sec 394 ' (2006) 8sec~12 4(2011) 1 SCC467 250 Corooration Limited v. Rajcsh Kumar and others': S. Pannccr Sclvam and others v. State of Tamil Nadu and others"; Chairman and Managin~ Director, Central Bank of India and others v. Central Bank of India SC/ST Enmlovees Welfare Association and others 7and Sur~sh Chand Gautam v. State of Uttar Pradesh and others ' to cont~nd that the request for a revisit cannot be entertained (1d nauseam. However, apart from the clamour for revisit, further questions were lllso raised about application of the principle of creamy layer in situations of competing claims within the same races, communities, groups or parts thcreofofSC/ST notified by the President under Articles 341and342 of the Constitution oflndia. 2. Having regard to the questions involved in this case, we are of the opinion that this is a case to be heard by a Bench as per the constitutional mandate under Article 145(3) ofthe Constitution oflndia. Ordered accordingly. Place the files before the Hon 'blc Chief Justice of India immediately. 3. Though the learned counsel have pressed for interim relief, we are of the view that even that stage needs to be considered by the Constitution Bench. The parties are free to mention the urgency before the Hon 'ble Chief Jttstice oflndia. Ankit Cyan '(2012i 1sec1 '(20I5J 10 sec 292 '(2015) 12SCC308 '(2016) 11 sec 113 Matter to be plac~·d before Hon 'blc CJI for appropriate Bench.