Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 481 (RAJ)

Avinash Daulatram Majshram v. State

2009-02-12

MOHAMMAD RAFIQ

body2009
Hon'ble RAFIQ, J.—Petitioner Dr. Avinash Daulatram Maishram, has filed this writ petition challenging the order of the State Government dated 18.3.2002 whereby his prayer for treating him as a member of Scheduled Castes for the purpose of promotion in the service of the State of Rajasthan, was rejected. 2. Petitioner obtained degree of Bachelor of Veterinary Science and Animal Husbandry from Nagpur Veterinary College in the year 1992, which is affiliated to the University of Punjab. He is response to an advertisement issued by the respondents, applied for appointment on the post of Veterinary Assistant Surgeon/Veterinary Extension Officer in the year 1994 and was eventually appointed on ad hoc basis. He was posted at Government Veterinary Hospital, Surajgarh, District Jhunjhunu. Subsequently, Rajasthan Public Service Commission advertised certain number of vacancies for regular appointment on the post of Veterinary Assistant Surgeon/Veterinary Extension Officer. Petitioner applied and was selected. He was appointed on regular basis on the post of Veterinary Assistant Surgeon vide order dated 15.3.1995. In his application for appointment, petitioner declared himself as member of Scheduled Caste and produced before the Rajasthan Public Service Commission caste certificate issued by Executive Magistrate of Nagpur in the State of Maharashtra. Petitioner was however selected on the basis of his own merit in the general quota. According to the petitioner, one Dr. Subhodh Damodar Mate, who also is an original native of Maharashtra, applied in the same selection and claimed himself to be a Scheduled Caste candidate. His name appeared at S.No. 113 of the same appointment order dated 15.3.1995. He was treated as Schedule Caste candidate entitling him to all such benefits as are available to the member of Scheduled Caste. One Dr. Niwas Kodu Sawalay also in the like manner applied in the same selection process. He was also originally treated as a general caste candidate but on his representation, the government by order dated 7.9.2000 directed his status to be changed from general category to that of Scheduled Caste. 3. When name of the petitioner was not shown in the seniority list dated 7.2.2000 as a member of Scheduled Castes, he submitted representation to the respondents on 18.10.2000. It was this representation which was rejected by the respondents by their order dated 18.3.2002, which is impugned in the present writ petitioner. 4. 3. When name of the petitioner was not shown in the seniority list dated 7.2.2000 as a member of Scheduled Castes, he submitted representation to the respondents on 18.10.2000. It was this representation which was rejected by the respondents by their order dated 18.3.2002, which is impugned in the present writ petitioner. 4. Shri Anupam Agarwal, learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that action of the respondents in not treating the petitioner as a member of Scheduled Caste is wholly arbitrary and illegal as `Mehar' Community is notified as Scheduled Caste in the State of Maharashtra as well as State of Rajasthan under the notification issued by the Government of India. It was argued that when `Mehar' community has been treated as Scheduled Caste in both the States, a person belonging to such community migrating from one State to another, cannot be differentiated at the later place only on the basis of place of his birth. Such an action of the respondents is discriminatory and violative of Articles 14 & 16 of the Constitution of India. Referring to the case of aforesaid two persons namely; Dr. Subhodh Damodar Mate and Dr. Niwas Kodu Sawalay, learned counsel argued that the action of the respondents is wholly discriminatory because when they have treated two other similarly circumstanced persons, who are original native of State of Maharashtra and were appointed in the same selection process, as Scheduled Caste, the petitioner could not be singled out for meting out a different treatment. Learned counsel cited the Circular of the Government of Rajasthan issued by its Department of Personnel dated 4.3.2002 and argued that action of the respondents is contrary to this Circular in which it has been directed that even if a person belonging to Scheduled Caste, Scheduled Tribe or Other Backward Class is selected on his own merit against general quota, he would be treated as one belonging to such caste/tribe to which he actually belongs for the purpose of other benefits during his service career including for promotion. Learned counsel in support of his arguments relied on the judgments of Supreme Court in Indira Sawhney & Ors. vs. Union of India, 1992 Supp (3) SCC 217, S. Pushpa & Ors. vs. Union of India, (2005) 3 SCC page 1, Union of India vs. Dudh Nath Prasad, 2000(2) SCC 20 and a judgment of this Court in Mrs. Sahendra Bai and Ors. vs. Union of India, 1992 Supp (3) SCC 217, S. Pushpa & Ors. vs. Union of India, (2005) 3 SCC page 1, Union of India vs. Dudh Nath Prasad, 2000(2) SCC 20 and a judgment of this Court in Mrs. Sahendra Bai and Ors. vs. RPSC & Anr., 2008(4) WLC page 252. 5. On the other hand, Shri S.N. Kumawat, learned counsel for the Rajasthan Public Service Commission and Shri Hemant Gupta, learned Additional Government Counsel opposed the writ petition. 6. Shri S.N. Kumawat, learned counsel for the respondent RPSC argued that the petitioner was called for the interview not because he was belonging to Scheduled Caste of State of Rajasthan but he was selected in the merit list also, as a general category candidates. RPSC accordingly forwarded his name to the State Government for appointment in the general category. As regards Dr. Subhodh Damodar Mate and Dr. Niwas Kodu Sawalay also, Shri S.N. Kumawat submitted that they too were treated as member of Scheduled Caste by the RPSC and like the petitioner they were also selected in the general quota. It was argued that even if a particular community has been treated as Scheduled Caste in one State, it cannot be treated as Scheduled Caste in all other States. Inclusion of such community as Scheduled Caste in such State depends on determination of various factors related to that particu-lar State. The certificate of Scheduled Caste has been issued to the petitioner by the authorities of the State of Maharashtra where he was born and brought up. That was because he was native of that State. But such certificate does not entitle him to be treated as Schedule Caste in the State of Rajasthan. 7. Shri S.N. Kumawat, learned counsel referring to the Constitution (Scheduled Caste) Order 1950 dated 10.8.1950 argued that its clause (2) very specifically provides that the castes specified in Part-I to XXII of the Schedule to this order, shall in relation to the States to which those parts respectively relates, be deemed to be Scheduled Caste so far as regards members thereof resident in the localities specified in relation to them in those parts of the Schedule. Learned counsel argued that the Presidential Order shall have to be read in conjunction with Article 341 of the Constitution, which in its sub-article (1) provides that the President may in respect of any State or Union Territory, after consultation with the Governor thereof by public notification specify the castes, races, or tribes or parts of or grounds within castes or tribes, which shall for the purpose of Constitution, be deemed to be Scheduled Castes in relation to the State or Union Territory, as the case may be. It was argued that the phraseology "with respect to any State" and "in relation to that State" as appearing in sub-Article (1) of Articles 341, shall have to be read together and conjointly. If in the Presidential Order and the notification issued thereunder a community is declared as Scheduled Caste in one State, then it shall have to be treated as Scheduled Caste in relation to that State only and not for any other State. Learned counsel in support of his arguments relied on the Constitution Bench judgments of the Supreme Court in Marri Chandra Shekhar Rao vs. Dean, Seth G.S. Medical College & Ors. - (1990) 3 SCC 130 , Action Committee on Issue of Caste Certificate to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes in the State of Maharashtra & Anr. vs. Union of India & Anr. (1994) 5 SCC 244 and other judgments of the Supreme Court in U.P. Public Service Commission, Allahabad vs. Sanjay Kumar Singh - (2003) 7 SCC 657 , S. Pushpa & Ors vs. Sivachanmugavelu & Ors.- 2005(3) SCC 1 . It was argued that in the Constitutional Scheme of the nation, status of a community declared as Scheduled Caste in one State has been deliberately confined to that State only, otherwise the benefits as admissible to natives of that State would be eaten into by natives of other States, who may be belonging to a caste of same or similar name in such other State. If that is allowed, this would deprive the rightful claimants of their legitimate entitlements and reduce their changes of securing the benefits intended to be given to them only by the Constitution. Learned counsel denied the allegation of discrimination on the basis of place of birth the violation of Article 16(2) of the Constitution of India. 8. If that is allowed, this would deprive the rightful claimants of their legitimate entitlements and reduce their changes of securing the benefits intended to be given to them only by the Constitution. Learned counsel denied the allegation of discrimination on the basis of place of birth the violation of Article 16(2) of the Constitution of India. 8. Shri Hemant Gupta, learned Additional Government Counsel also opposed the writ petitioner and in substance adopted the arguments made by Shri S.N. Kumawat. He denied that there was any violation of Article 16(2) of the Constitution of India and argued that the appointment of the petitioner was made in the general category as per select list sent by the RPSC to the Government. 9. Shri Anupam Agarwal, learned counsel for the petitioner rejoined and submitted that in none of the judgments relied on by the learned counsel for the respondents, was the question of violation of Article 16(2) of the Constitution examined. It persons belongings to same caste and may be with same origin having the marital relationship with one another are discriminated against merely on the basis of their place of birth across the line of territorial border of one State from another, this would negate the very federal spirit of the nation. It was argued that the present matter is required to be examined from this aspect whether denying the status of Scheduled Caste to a person belonging to one particular caste, even though such caste is declared as Scheduled Caste in the State in which he was born and also in the State in which he is claiming appointment or has been appointed may be against general quota, merely claiming benefit of reservation in the promotion, would not amount to discrimination only on the basis of place of birth? Learned counsel submitted that the writ petitioner has prayed for granting him the status of Scheduled Caste only for the purpose of claiming benefits in promotion during his service career. 10. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the rival submissions and respectfully studied the cited precedents. 11. Facts as noticed above clearly go to show that the petitioner prior to his appointment with the respondent-Government of Rajasthan was domicile of the State of Maharashtra and that the certificate declaring his status as that of scheduled caste was issued by the competent authority in the State of Maharashtra. 11. Facts as noticed above clearly go to show that the petitioner prior to his appointment with the respondent-Government of Rajasthan was domicile of the State of Maharashtra and that the certificate declaring his status as that of scheduled caste was issued by the competent authority in the State of Maharashtra. The question that arises for determination by this Court is whether the petitioner after his appointment with the Government of Rajasthan can be treated as a member of Scheduled Caste now because he has shifted to the State of Rajasthan and that the caste `Mehar', to which he belongs, is recognised as on of the Scheduled Castes not only in State of Maharashtra but also in the State of Rajasthan? This question fell for consideration of the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in Marri Chandra Shekhar Rao, supra, wherein also the petitioner was born at Tenali in State of A.P. and belonged to `Gouda' community popularly known as 'Goudi'. This community was specified as a Scheduled Tribe in the Constitution (Scheduled Tribes) Order, 1950. Father of the petitioner obtained a Scheduled Tribe certificate from the competent authority in the State of A.P., on the basis of which he secured appointment in the quota reserved for Scheduled Tribe in the Government of India undertaking and was posted in Bombay. The petitioner was then only nine years' old. He prosecuted his further studies in Bombay and passed out senior secondary examination held by State Secondary and Higher Secondary Examination, Board. While seeking admission to the respondent college, he claimed benefit of reservation against the quota of Scheduled Tribes. He was denied admission in that college though the candidates of Scheduled Tribes having their origin in the State of Maharashtra and securing lesser marks than him were admitted in that college. The respondents relied on Circular issued by the Government of India dated 22.2.1985. The petitioner then approached the Supreme Court. In those facts, the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in para 13 has held as under: "13. xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx that the expression `for the purposes of this Constitution' in Article 341 as well as in Article 342 do imply that the Scheduled Caste and the Scheduled Tribes so specified would be entitled to enjoy all the constitutional rights that are enjoyable by all the citizens as such. xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx that the expression `for the purposes of this Constitution' in Article 341 as well as in Article 342 do imply that the Scheduled Caste and the Scheduled Tribes so specified would be entitled to enjoy all the constitutional rights that are enjoyable by all the citizens as such. Constitutional right, e.g., it has been argued that right to migration or right to move from one part to another is a right given to all-to Scheduled Castes or Tribes and to non-Scheduled Castes or tribes. But when a Scheduled Caste or Tribe migrates, there is no inhibition in migrating but when he migrates, he does not and cannot carry any special rights or privileges attributed to him or granted to him in the original State specified for that State or area or part thereof. If that right is not given in the migrated State it does not interfere with his constitutional right of equality or of migration or of carrying on his trade, business or profession. Neither Articles 14, 16, 19 nor Articles 21 is denuded by migration but he just enjoy those rights in accordance with the law if they are otherwise followed in the place where he migrates. There should be harmonious construction, harmonious in the sense that both parts or all parts of a constitutional provision should be so read that one part does not become nugatory to the other or denuded to the other or denuded to the other but all parts must be read in the context in which these are used. It was contended that the only way in which the fundamental rights of the petitioner under Articles 14, 19(1)(d), 19(1)(e) and 19(1)(f) could be given effect to is by construing Articles 342 in a manner by which a member of a Scheduled Tribe gets the benefit of that status for the purposes of the Constitution throughout the territory of India. It must' be given full effect. There is no dispute about that. The words "for the purposes of this Constitution" must mean that a Scheduled Caste so designated must have right under Article 14, 19(1)(d), 19(1)(e) and 19(1)(f) inasmuch as these are applicable to him in his area where he migrates or where he goes. It must' be given full effect. There is no dispute about that. The words "for the purposes of this Constitution" must mean that a Scheduled Caste so designated must have right under Article 14, 19(1)(d), 19(1)(e) and 19(1)(f) inasmuch as these are applicable to him in his area where he migrates or where he goes. The expression "in relation to that State" would become nugatory if in all States the special privileges or the rights granted to Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes are carried forward. It will also be inconsistent with the whole purpose of the scheme of reservation. In Andhra Pradesh, a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe may require protection because a boy or a child who grows in that area in inhibited or is at disadvantage. In Maharashtra that caste or that tribe may not be so inhibited but other castes or tribes might be. If a boy or a child goes to that atmosphere of Maharashtra as a young boy or a child and goes in a completely different atmosphere or Maharashtra where this inhibition or this disadvantage is not there, then he cannot be said to have that reservation which will denude the children or the people of Maharashtra belonging to any segment of that State who may still require that protection. After all, it has to be borne in mind that the protection is necessary for the disadvantaged castes or tribes of Maharashtra as well as disadvantaged castes or tribes of Andhra Pradesh. Thus, balancing must be done as between those who need protection and those who need no protection, i.e., who belongs to advantaged castes or tribes and who do not. Treating the determina-tion under Arts. 341 and 342 of the Constitution to be valid for all over the country would be in negation to the very purpose and scheme and language of Art. 341 read with Art. 15(4) of the Constitution." 12. In Action Committee, supra, again a similar issue came up for consideration of the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court. 341 and 342 of the Constitution to be valid for all over the country would be in negation to the very purpose and scheme and language of Art. 341 read with Art. 15(4) of the Constitution." 12. In Action Committee, supra, again a similar issue came up for consideration of the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court. The question was whether a person who migrate from the State of his origin to another State in search of employment or for educational purposes or the like, cannot be treated as a person belonging to Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe of the State to which he migrate for the purpose of benefit of such status in such later State if he was so recognised as Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe in the State of his origin. Challenge was made to the Circular of the Government dated 22.3.1977. Reiterating its earlier view in Marri Chandra Shekhar Rao, supra, the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in para 16 of the judgment held as under: "16. We may add that considerations for specifying a particular caste or tribe or class for inclusion in the list of Schedule Castes/Schedule Tribes or backward classes in a given State would depend on the nature and extent of disadvantages and social hardships suffered by that caste, tribe or class in that State which may be totally non est in another State to which persons belonging thereto may migrate. Coincidentally it may be that a caste or tribe bearing the same nomenclature is specified in two States but the considerations on the basis of which they have been specified may be totally different. So also the degree of disadvantages of various elements which constitute the input for specification may also be totally different. Therefore, merely because a given caste is specified in State A as a Scheduled Caste does not necessarily mean that if there be another caste bearing the same nomenclature in another State the person belonging to the former would be entitled to the rights, privileges and benefits admissible to a member of the Scheduled Caste of the latter State "for the purposes of this Constitution". This is an aspect which has to be kept in mind and which was very much in the minds of the Constitution-makers as is evident from the choice of language of Article 341 and 342 of the Constitution. xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx" 13. This is an aspect which has to be kept in mind and which was very much in the minds of the Constitution-makers as is evident from the choice of language of Article 341 and 342 of the Constitution. xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx" 13. Reliance placed by the learned counsel for the petitioner on judgment of Supreme Court in Dudh Nath Prasad, supra, is wholly misconceived because in that case, the respondent in appeal before the Supreme Court was claiming status of Scheduled Caste and his parents were continuously residing in the State of West Bengal for last more than 30 years before even he joined the service in the office of Comptroller of Auditor General of India. Prior to their migration to the State of West Bengal, his parents were leaving in Siwan in the State of Bihar where they owned some property. The respondent was born in that District. He had schooling and graduation from Bihar. He joined the services in Customs House, Calcutta (West Bengal) and while working there, he obtained an S.C. Certificate from the SDO, Howrah on 16.7.1965 because he belongs to `Nuniya' caste which was Scheduled Caste in the State of West Bengal. He applied to UPSC as a Scheduled Caste candidate claiming that his parents were ordinarily residing in District Howrah. UPSC made certain enquires and accepted him as a candidate belonging to `Nuniya' caste confirming his candidature in the year 1996. He was thus appointed against the reserved vacancies of Scheduled Castes. It was in 1968 that the Comptroller and Auditor General of India for the first time wrote to the respondent that he could not be treated as member of the Scheduled Castes. In that context, the Supreme Court interpreting the words "domicile" vis-a-vis "residence" held that both these words referred to "permanent home" and in view of the meaning of the expression "ordinarily resident", the parents of the respondents must be treated as ordinarily residing in the State of West Bengal and respondent belonging to Scheduled Caste because "Nuniya" community has been recognised as Scheduled Caste in the State of Bengal. That was owning to the peculiarities of that case that the Supreme Court held so. Here, in the instant case, the petitioner was not having his domicile in the State of Rajasthan prior to his appointment. That was owning to the peculiarities of that case that the Supreme Court held so. Here, in the instant case, the petitioner was not having his domicile in the State of Rajasthan prior to his appointment. Similarly in S. Pushpa & Ors., supra, which also has been relied on by learned counsel for the respondent, members of the Scheduled Castes who migrated from other States to Union Territory of Pondicherry were held to be eligible for appointment on the post reserved for Scheduled Castes because according to instructions issued by the Government of India, the candidates of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes from other States migrating to the aforesaid union territory were declared entitled to the benefits of such status in respect of post of service under the Central Government and that Pondicherry being a union territory, had through out been adopting such policy of the Central Government. It was held that no illegality can be ascribed to such policy and the same cannot be held to be contrary to any provision of law. Such is not a question in the present case. 14. Reliance on the judgment of this Court in Mrs. Sahendra Bai & Ors., supra, is also wholly misconceived because that was a case in which the State authorities had granted caste certificates to the respective candidates, who had migrated from the adjoining States, mostly from Haryana, to the State of Rajasthan, on account of their marriage with permanent natives of the State of Rajasthan and the competent authorities of the State Government on consideration of that fact, granted them the certificates of O.B.C. status. Most of the candidates in that batch of petitions belonged to Yadav community, which was recognised as OBC in both the states. Besides the fact that government itself in those cases granted OBC Certificates to the concerned candidates, there was also no application of Articles 341 and 342 of the Constitution of India to that batch of petitions. 15. Contention that denial of benefits of reservation to the members of "Mehar" community born in the State of Maharashtra and outside the State of Rajasthan at the same time giving such benefit to those of this community born in the State of Rajasthan, would tantamount to discrimination on the basis of place of birth day in the meaning of Article 16(2) of the Constitution of India, cannot be accepted. Such an issue was raised before the Supreme Court and was considered by the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in Marri Chandra Shekhar Rao, supra in para 8 of the judgment. Supreme Court in para 8 thereof, repelling this argument held as under:- "8. Article 15 of the Constitution prohibits discrimination on grounds of religion, race, caste, sex or place of birth. Article 15(4), however enjoins that nothing in that article or in clause (2) of Articles 29 of the Constitution shall prevent the State from making any special provision of the advancement of any socially and educationally backward classes of citizens or for the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes. Therefore, reservation in favour of Scheduled Tribes or Scheduled Castes for the purpose of advancement of socially or educationally backward citizens to make them equal with other segments of community in educational or job facilities is the mandate of the Constitution. Equality is the dictate of our Constitution. Article 14 ensures equality in its fullness to all our citizens. State is enjoined not to deny to any persons equality before law and equal protection of the law within the territory of India. Where it is necessary, however, for the purpose of bringing about real equality of opportunity between those who are unequals, certain reservations are necessary and these should be ensured. Equality under the Constitution is a dynamic concept which must cover every process of equalisation. Equality must become a living reality for the large masses of the people. These who are unequal, in fact, cannot be treated by identifical standards; that may be equality in law but it would certainly not be real equality. Existence of equality of opportunity depends not merely on the absence of disabilities but on presence of abilities. It is not simply a matter of legal equality. De jure equality must ultimately find its raison d'etre in de facto equality. The State must, therefore, resort to compensatory State action for the purpose of making people who are factually unequal in their wealth, education or social environment, equal in specified areas. It is necessary to take into account de facto inequalities which exist in the society and to take affirmative action by way of giving preference and reservation to the socially and economically disadvantaged persons or inflicting handicaps on those more advantageously placed, in order to bring about real equality. It is necessary to take into account de facto inequalities which exist in the society and to take affirmative action by way of giving preference and reservation to the socially and economically disadvantaged persons or inflicting handicaps on those more advantageously placed, in order to bring about real equality. Such affirmative action though apparently discriminatory is calculated to produce equality on a broader basis by eliminating de facto inequalities and placing the weaker sections of the community on a footing of equality with the stronger and more powerful sections so that each member of the community, whatever is his birth, occupation or social position may enjoy equal opportunity of using to the full his natural endowments of physique, of character and of intelligence. In this connection, reference may be made to the observations of this Court in Pradeep Jain vs. Union of India." 16. Provisions contained in Articles 341 and 342 of the Constitution of India are special provisions which provide that the President may for the members of the Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes by issuance of a public notification "with respect to any State" after consultation with the Governor thereof specify the castes, races or tribes or parts of or groups within castes, races or tribes, which shall for the purposes of the Constitution be deemed to be Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes "in relation to that State." There is no corresponding provision in so far as Other Backward Classes are concerned. Article 340 of the Constitution of India merely provides that President may appoint Commission to investigate the conditions of socially and educationally backward classes within the territory of India and the difficulties under which they labour and to make recommendations as to the steps that should be taken by the Union or any State to remove such difficulties and to improve their condition and as to the grants that should be made for the purpose by the Union or any State and the conditions subject to which such grants should be made, and the order appointing such Commission shall define the procedure to be followed by the Commission. But then, the object of Article 340 is entirely different than the one contained in Articles 341 and 342 of the Constitution and there are no special safeguards like the once available in Articles 341 and 342. But then, the object of Article 340 is entirely different than the one contained in Articles 341 and 342 of the Constitution and there are no special safeguards like the once available in Articles 341 and 342. There is no specific provision for issuance of the Presidential order/public notification specifying the castes, races or tribes "with respect to any State" or "in relation to that State" as envisaged therein in those Articles. Article 341 of the Constitution of India provides that the President "with respect to any State" after consulting the Governor thereof by a public notification specify, castes, races or tribes or parts or groups within the castes, races or tribes, shall for the purpose of Constitution be deemed to be Scheduled Caste "in relation to that State". What is therefore envisaged by this Articles is that specifications by the President made in the public notification "with respect to any State" for the castes, races or tribes or parts or groups within such castes, races or tribes shall be confined to "in relation to that State". What is therefore envisaged by this Article is that specifications by the President made in the public notification "with respect to any State" for the castes, races or tribes or parts or groups within such castes, races or tribes shall be confined to "in relation to that State" only and such castes, races or tribes were included shall be deemed to be Scheduled Castes" in relation to that State" only. Whether or not the castes, races or tribes of any particular State share common ancestors with castes, races or tribes having similar nomenclature or description in the adjoining State and whether on that basis, they would be entitled to similar benefits in such adjoining State to which they otherwise migrate in the course of business or due to inter-marital relationship, is a policy decision for the State/s in question. 17. Notwithstanding therefore the inclusion of such castes, races or tribes in the Presidential notification of both such States, the natives of one State by mere inclusion of the caste, races or tribes having same/similar description or nomenclature, cannot claim benefits in such migratory State which may be available to only natives thereof. This is an issue which is getting cropped up before the courts every now and then and requires attention of the Union Government and the concerned State Governments. This is an issue which is getting cropped up before the courts every now and then and requires attention of the Union Government and the concerned State Governments. According to the scheme of the Constitution as envisaged in its Articles 338, which Union or State Government, they in this connection, while taking such measures as may be beneficial for Scheduled Castes for their protection, welfare, development and advancement, are required to take into consideration the recommendations of the National Commission for Scheduled Castes. The National Commission for Scheduled Castes has been purposely constituted to investigate and monitor all matters relating to the safeguards provided under the Constitution or under any other law or under any order of the Government and to evaluate the working of such safeguards, to inquire into specific complaints with respect to the deprivation of rights and safeguards of the Scheduled Castes, to participate and advise on the planning process of their socio-economic development and to evaluate the progress of their development under the Union and any State and to present to the President, annually and at such other times, as the Commission may deem fit, reports upon the working of those safeguards. As per sub-article (6) of Article 338 of the Constitution of India, reports submitted by the National Commission for Scheduled Castes are mandatory required to be laid before each House of Parliament along with a memorandum explaining the action taken or proposed to be taken, on the recommendations relating to the Union and the reasons for the non-acceptance, if any, of any of such recommendations. According to sub-Article (7) thereof, it such recommendation or any part thereof, relates to any matter with which any State Government is concerned, a copy of such report shall be forwarded to the Governor of the State, who shall in the like manner cause it to be laid before the legislature of the State. 18. The petitioner, if so advised, may approach the National Commission for Scheduled Castes agitating all such arguments which he has raised before this Court. 18. The petitioner, if so advised, may approach the National Commission for Scheduled Castes agitating all such arguments which he has raised before this Court. It shall be then for the National Commission for Scheduled Castes to examine advisability of making appropriate recommendation to the Union Government and/or State Governments concerned, so as to suggest the mechanism to be adopted in such cases where the spread of any castes, races or tribes is found across the line of territorial border of two or more States and they are found to share common ancestors having inter-se marital relationship, if that is possible without compromising the safeguards provided for the original natives of a given State, upon mutual understanding that may be arrived at between such contiguous states. 19. In view of the discussion made above, the writ petition deserves to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed with the aforesaid liberty to the petitioner. 20. Costs made easy.