Context: Recently, Supreme Court has ruled that a person belonging to a reserved category is entitled to claim the benefit of reservation in either of the successor States of Bihar or Jharkhand, but cannot claim benefit of the quota simultaneously in both the successor States upon their reorganisation in November, 2000.
Background

• The top court was dealing with a petition by a man who was appointed as an assistant teacher in December 1999 at Ranchi as a scheduled caste (SC) candidate.
• But when Pankaj Kumar applied as an SC candidate for the state’s combined civil services examination in 2008, he was not appointed despite his selection on the grounds that he was a migrant in Jharkhand and not entitled to reservation benefits since his service book showed him to be a permanent resident of Patna.
• Earlier, High Court order denying him appointment in state civil service examination of 2007 on the ground that his address proof showed that he was a permanent resident of Patna, Bihar.
• The Supreme Court noted that such a matter involving reservation benefits being denied as a result of bifurcation was arising for the first time.

Issue

• The court noted that Sections 73 and 74 of the 2000 Act protected the employment of only those reserved candidates from undivided Bihar who opted to remain in the employment of Bihar government while employees of undivided Bihar who opted for service in Jharkhand government were denied recognition by Jharkhand terming them as migrants. 
• At the same time, Bihar introduced a new rule in 2003 under the Bihar Reservation of Vacancies in Posts and Services(for Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes) Act, 1991, limiting reservation benefits to only those who are residing in Bihar.

Supreme Court Observation

• The top court said it holds that the majority judgement of the High Court is unsustainable in law and is hereby set aside.
• They said we are also not in agreement with the minority judgment on principle and clarify 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.
• Therefore, it is made clear that person is entitled to claim benefit of reservation in either of the successor State of Bihar or State of Jharkhand, but will not be 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.

Additional Information

• Article 341(1): The President may with respect to any State or Union territory, and where it is a State after consultation with the Governor thereof, by public notification, specify the castes, races or tribes or parts of or groups within castes, races or tribes which shall for the purposes of this Constitution be deemed to be Scheduled Castes in relation to that State or Union territory.
• Article 342(1): The President may with respect to any State or Union territory, and where it is a State, after consultation with the Governor thereof, by public notification, specify the tribes or tribal communities or parts of or groups within tribes or tribal communities which shall for the purposes of this Constitution be deemed to be Scheduled Tribes in relation to that State or Union territory.