TEAM CODE – 104R

6TH INTRA-CUM-INTER BATCH MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2018

BEFORE THE HON’BLE

SUPREME COURT OF MAHISURU
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2431 OF 2016

(Arising out of SLP (Civ.) No. 2356 of 2015)

Mr. Ganesan……………. Appellant(s)

Versus.
Mr. Pavaj, NCR of Ulan and Ors………... Respondent(s)

With
Writ Petition (Civil) No. 2011 of 2005

Mr. Manvel Murmu…………Petitioner

Versus
State of Momarastra and Anr………. Respondent

UPON SUBMISSION TO THE HON‟BLE CHIEF JUSTICE AND HIS COMPANION

JUSTICES OF THE SUPREME COURT OF MAHISURU

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

MEMORANDUM for RESPONDENT TABLE OF CONTENTS

TABLE OF CONTENTS

TABLE OF CONTENTS.........................................................................................................I

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS...............................................................................................III

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES.................................................................................................IV

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION.....................................................................................V

STATEMENT OF FACTS....................................................................................................VI

ISSUES RAISED................................................................................................................VIII

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS..........................................................................................IX

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED..................................................................................................1

1. A REFERENCE BY A SMALLER BENCH COULD BE REJECTED AT THE THRESHOLD BY A

LARGER BENCH AND ON WHICH GROUNDS.............................................................................1

1.1. Substantive question of law and its relativity to the case........................................1

1.2. Non Relativity of substantive question of law to Mr. Pavaj’s case.........................2

2. A RE-MIGRATED PERSON BELONGING TO A SCHEDULE CASTE OF X NOMENCLATURE

RECOGNIZED BY THE PRESIDENTIAL ORDER OF 1961 IN THE ERSTWHILE STATE A IS NOT

ENTITLED FOR BENEFITS GIVEN BY THE RE-ORGANIZED STATE B AND C, WHEN THE SCHEDULE
CAST OF X NOMENCLATURE IS ALSO RECOGNIZED IN THOSE STATES RE-ORGANIZED AS WELL.

2.1. Re-organization of Morastra is valid under article 3 of the constitution of Mahisuru

...................................................................................................................................
3

2.2. President has validly considered Maki tribe as ST..................................................3

2.3. Person to be eligible for reservation under SC/ST of any particular state must be a
resident of the state during the enactment of the presidential order declaring castes and
tribes as SC and ST respectively........................................................................................4

Page | I
TH
6 INTRA-CUM-INTER BATCH MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2018
MEMORANDUM for RESPONDENT TABLE OF CONTENTS

3. NCR OF ULAN SCHEDULE CASTE (RATIONALIZATION OF RESERVATION) ACT, 2005 IS

CONSTITUTIONALLY VALID.....................................................................................................6

3.1. Within ambit of equality..........................................................................................6

3.2. In accordance to article 15(4)..................................................................................7

3.3. In accordance to article 16(4)..................................................................................7

3.4. Follows directive principles.....................................................................................8

3.5. migrant clause is applicable.....................................................................................8

PRAYER.................................................................................................................................XI

Page | II
TH
6 INTRA-CUM-INTER BATCH MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2018
MEMORANDUM for RESPONDENT LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

SC Schedule caste

ST Schedule Tribe

AIR All India Report

SCC Supreme Court Cases

SCR Supreme Court Reports

BOM Bombay

Anr Another

Ed. Edition

Govt. Government

Hon’ble Honourable

UOI Union Of India

A.P. Andhra Pradesh

C.B.I Central Bureau of Investigation

NCT National Capital territory

V. Versus

Vol. Volume

Ors Others

W.P. Writ Petition

SLP Special Leave petition

Page | III
TH
6 INTRA-CUM-INTER BATCH MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2018
MEMORANDUM for RESPONDENT INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

CASES

Bankimchandra Makanbhai Patel Vs. State of Maharashtra and Anr, 2006 (2) MhLj 664............2
Bankimchandra Makanbhai Patel Vs. State of Maharashtra and Anr, 2006 (2) MhLj 664............4
Indra sawhney v. UOI AIR 1993 SC 477........................................................................................8
Marry Chandrashekhar Rao 's case, 1990 SCR (2) 843...................................................................2
S. Pushpa and Ors. v. Sivachanmugavelu and Ors AIR 2005 SC 1038.........................................9
Sir Chunilal V. Mehta & Sons Ltd. v. Century Spg. & Mfg. Co. 1962 AIR 1314..........................1
Society for un-aided private school of Rajasthan v UOI AIR 2012 SC 3445 (3490.......................8
State of Kerala v. N.M. Thomas AIR 1976 SC 490,...................................................................7, 8
Subhash Chandra and Anr. v. Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board and Ors.......................
....................................................................................................................... (2009) 15 SCC 458
.....................................................................................................................................................4

CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS

1. Article 136, The Constitution of India

2. Article 14, The Constitution of India
3. Article 341, The Constitution of India
4. Article 342, The Constitution of India
5. Article 145(3), The Constitution of India
6. Article 15(4) and 16(4), The Constitution of India

Page | IV
TH
6 INTRA-CUM-INTER BATCH MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2018
MEMORANDUM for RESPONDENT STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

The Respondent has the honour to submit before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of Mahisuru, the
Memorandum for the Petitioner under Article 136(SLP) and Article 32 (Writ Jurisdiction of the
Supreme Court) of the Constitution of Mahisuru. The Present Memorandum sets forth the facts,
contentions and arguments advanced in the present case.

Page | V
TH
6 INTRA-CUM-INTER BATCH MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2018
MEMORANDUM for RESPONDENT STATEMENT OF FACTS

STATEMENT OF FACTS

CIVIL APPEAL 2431 OF 2016

MR. PAVAJ V/S NCR OF ULAN

 Bagyapuri is one of the States in Mahisuru. It may be mentioned that Urvi Three
community is highly discriminated and have settled in rural area of the State, mainly
working as agriculturists and manual labourers.
 The President by Order of 1961 identified inter alia Urvi three to be a Scheduled Caste in
the State of Bagyapuri.
 Mr. Megra belonging to Urvi three caste, was working as an agriculturist in the State of
Bagyapuri since his birth. He migrated with his family to NCT Ulan (similar to NCT
Delhi).
 Mr. Megra started working there. In the year 1975, Mr. Megra was married and within
two years thereafter, the couples were blessed with a child (Mr. Pavaj).
 In the year 2005, NCT of Ulan enacted a legislation titeled Ulan Scheduled Caste
(rationalization of reservation Act), 2005. This legislation provided for reservation of
upto 2% for migrant SC/ST persons.
 In 2009, NCM, called for job applications for 50 vacancies in the Water Board. Acc.
advertisement published in newspaper 40% of the seats were kept reserved for the post
including 15% reserved for SC/ST as notified by the Presidential Order of 1961.
 Mr. Pavaj also applied and his application was rejected on the grounds that he was
migrant. He approached the High Court of NCR of Ulan, under writ jurisdiction The
High Court of Ulanto reconsider the application of Mr. Pavaj.
 Aggrieved by the order of the High Court, certain persons belonging to general category
has approached the Supreme Court under Article 136 of the Constitution by an order
dated 02.01.2017, the case was referred to a larger bench and was placed before the Chief
Justice of India for constituting appropriate bench.

Page | VI
TH
6 INTRA-CUM-INTER BATCH MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2018
MEMORANDUM for RESPONDENT STATEMENT OF FACTS

WRIT PETITION (CIV.) NO. 2011 OF 2005

Mr. Manvel Murmu v. State of Mohrastra

 The ancestors of Manvel Murmu belonged to a class of Scheduled Tribe known as Maki
Tribe in the State of Morastra.
 Maki Tribe was notified as a Scheduled Tribe in the Presidential Order of 1962
concerning the State of Morastra.
 One Moril Murmu was born in the State of Mohrastra (Maarin City) in the year 1944.
After independence, he moved to Dunkun Islands for education in 1963. He studied
medical course in Dunkun Island and settled there as a medical practitioner.
 In the meanwhile, State of Morastra was reorganized into two States namely State of
Mujrat and State of Momarastra. The Reorganization was made under Morastra
Reorganization Act of 1974 which was notified from 01.01.1974.
 Mr. Moril Murmu married Mrs. Mama, who was also a member of Maki Tribe from State
of Morastra. In the year 1974, the couple were blessed with a baby Mr. Manvel Murmu
who was born on Dunkun island. Maki tribe is not recognized as a ST in Dunkun Island.
They moved back to Maarin City, which was now in the State of Momarastra.
 In the year 1995, when Mr. Manvel wanted to take admission in an State Engineering
College. His admission was considered under the SC/ST category and the college granted
the seat. But in the year 2002, when he finally passed the final examination, his degree
was not provided by the State Engineering College as according to them, he was not
entitled for a seat as he was not a SC/ST belonging to the State of Momarastra.
 Aggrieved by the aforesaid action taken by the college, Mr. Manvel Murmu approached
the Supreme Court in the year 2005. The Apex Court had heard the matter substantively,
when the counsels representing the State of Momarastra represented that a similar matter
in the Case of Mr. Ganesan v. Mr. Pavaj and Anr., was referred to a larger bench. Apex
court thought it fit to tag the present case with that case. Both the cases are listed for final
disposal before a bench of seven learned judges of the Supreme Court of Mahisuru.

Page | VII
TH
6 INTRA-CUM-INTER BATCH MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2018
MEMORANDUM for RESPONDENT ISSUES RAISED

ISSUES RAISED

Following are the issues that have arisen from the facts of the present case:
1. Whether a reference by a smaller bench could be rejected at the threshold by a larger
bench?
2. If the answer to the above question is affirmative, then on what grounds?
3. Whether a re-migrated person belonging to a Scheduled Caste of X Nomenclature
recognized by the Presidential Order of 1961 in the erstwhile State A is entitled for
benefits given by the Re-organized State B and C, when the Scheduled Caste of X
Nomenclature is also recognized in those States reorganized States as well?
4. Whether the NCR of Ulan Scheduled Caste (rationalization of reservation) Act of 2005 is
constitutionally valid?

Page | VIII
TH
6 INTRA-CUM-INTER BATCH MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2018
MEMORANDUM for RESPONDENT SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

[ISSUE I.] THE SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION IS MAITAINABLE IN THE COURT OF

LAW
The SLP is not maintainable in the court of law as the natural rights of the parties are not
infringed and there is no substantial question of law.
[ISSUE II.] A REFERENCE BY A SMALLER BENCH COULD BE REJECTED AT
THE THRESHOLD BY A LARGER BENCH AND ON WHICH GROUNDS
The reference made by smaller bench can be rejected by the larger bench as it does not involve
substantial question of law.
[ISSUE III.] A RE-MIGRATED PERSON BELONGING TO A SCHEDULED CASTE
OF X NOMENCLATURE RECOGNIZED BY THE PRESIDENTIAL ORDER OF 1961
IN THE ERSTWHILE STATE A IS NOT ENTITLED FOR BENEFITS GIVEN BY THE
RE-ORGANIZED STATE B AND C, WHEN THE SCHEDULED CASTE OF X
NOMENCLATURE IS ALSO RECOGNIZED IN THOSE STATES REORGANIZED
STATES AS WELL
A re-migrated person belonging to a schedule caste of X nomenclature recognized by the
presidential order of 1961 in the erstwhile state A cannot claim benefits given by the re-
organized state B and C, when the schedule cast of X nomenclature is also recognized in those
states re-organized as well if he or his ancestors resided in the state at the time of presidential
order declaring SC/ST of that particular state as only those members of the SC/ST who are
included as a notified scheduled tribes in the State and who were and are permanent residents in
the State of and in the localities in which they are notified as on presidential order, would be
entitled to be treated as SC/ST in relation to the State.

[ISSUE IV.] THE NCR OF ULAN SCHEDULED CASTE (RATIONALIZATION OF

RESERVATION) ACT OF 2005 IS CONSTITUTIONALLY VALID
The constitutionality of the NCR of Ulan scheduled caste (rationalization of reservation) act of
2005 is challenged under Article 14, 15 and 16 of constitution of Mahisuru. The concerned act is
in accordance to the basic principles of equality. This act protects the rights of migrants by
providing them opportunity by giving limited reservation which is within the ambit of article
15(4) and 16(4). Moreover, the terms of the Act are strictly applicable. Thus, the Respondent

Page | IX
TH
6 INTRA-CUM-INTER BATCH MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2018
MEMORANDUM for RESPONDENT SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

pleads that The NCR of Ulan scheduled caste (rationalization of reservation) act of 2005 should
not be declared unconstitutional.

Page | X
TH
6 INTRA-CUM-INTER BATCH MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2018
MEMORANDUM for RESPONDENT ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

1. A REFERENCE BY A SMALLER BENCH COULD BE REJECTED AT THE THRESHOLD BY A

LARGER BENCH AND ON WHICH GROUNDS.

(¶ 1.) Where in the course of the hearing of any cause, appeal or other proceeding, the
Bench considers that the matter should be dealt with by a larger Bench, it shall refer the
matter to the Chief Justice, who shall thereupon constitute such a Bench for the hearing
of it.1

(¶ 2.) It is humbly submitted that a smaller bench refers a case to a larger bench when a
substantive question of law is involved and the larger bench cannot reject it because then
such a matter would remain undecided and justice wouldn’t be assigned to the parties.
But when the substantive question of law is not involved then the reference can be
rejected by the larger bench.

1.1. SUBSTANTIVE QUESTION OF LAW AND ITS RELATIVITY TO THE CASE

(¶ 3.) A question of law would be a substantial question of law if it directly or indirectly

affects the rights of parties and/or there is some doubt or difference of opinion on the
issue."2

(¶ 4.) It is humbly submitted that the issues which are being dealt in Mr. Manvel
Murmu v. State of Morastra and Mr. Ganesan v. Mr. Pavaj, NCR of Ulan and others are
not substantive question of law as they do not interfere with the rights of the parties. In
both the cases one party was a migrant and as per the decision of the courts in several
cases the migrants are not allowed to take the benefits of reservation in the state where
they migrate.

(¶ 5.) In the case of Mr. Manvel Murmu v. State of Morastra Mr. Manvel who was the
descendant of Mr. Moril Murmu was born in Dunken Island. His father moved to Dunken
Island in 1963 after the presidential order 1962 declaring tribes of Morastra as schedule
tribes of state of Morastra. After the re-organization of Morastra the place where they

1
Supreme Court Rules,2013 Order 6(2)
2
Sir Chunilal V. Mehta & Sons Ltd. v. Century Spg. & Mfg. Co. 1962 AIR 1314

Page | 1
TH
6 INTRA-CUM-INTER BATCH MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2018
MEMORANDUM for RESPONDENT ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

lived earlier now lied in Momrastra. They came back to Momrastra and Mr. Manvel
started studying in a college. He got his admission in the reserved category for STs but
when the time came for giving him his degree he was rejected by the college giving
reason that he didn’t belong to the ST of Morastra. The college was justified in not giving
the degree as Mr. Manvel was not the resident of Momrastra at the time of presidential
notification. And ‘only those members of the SC/ST who are included as a notified
scheduled tribes in the State and who were and are permanent residents in the State of
and in the localities in which they are notified as on presidential order, would be entitled
to be treated as SC/ST in relation to the State.’3

(¶ 6.) The migrant will not be entitled to the benefits even if such migrant has the same
nomenclature as notified in the State of migration for the benefits in the State of
migration. They would be entitled to benefits only in the State where they were resident
at the time of the State Reorganization Act.4

(¶ 7.) Therefore, after connecting the dots between the problem it is clear that Mr.
Manvel was a migrant and so not entitled to claim the benefit. Hence none of his right
was infringed. Therefore, this does not involve a substantive question of law.

1.2. NON RELATIVITY OF SUBSTANTIVE QUESTION OF LAW TO MR. PAVAJ’S CASE

(¶ 8.) In this case both the parties are not directly affected by the 2 % reservation clause
which is the cause of issue. The respondent whose application was rejected by the water
board on the ground of him being migrant will any how can get the reservation under
schedule caste in his domicile state. On the other hand, the appellant has not been
directly/indirectly affected by the aforesaid act as the reservation to migrants has been
given under the already reserved seats of schedule caste. No rights of the appellant have
been infringed as number of seats for him will remain same as they were earlier.

(¶ 9.) Therefore, the counsel hereby submits that in the instant case there is no
substantive question of law involved and the larger bench may on its own discretion
reject the reference made by smaller bench at threshold.

3
Bankimchandra Makanbhai Patel Vs. State of Maharashtra and Anr., 2006 (2) MhLj 664
4
Marry Chandrashekhar Rao 's case, 1990 SCR (2) 843

Page | 2
TH
6 INTRA-CUM-INTER BATCH MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2018
MEMORANDUM for RESPONDENT ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

(¶ 10.) Therefore, the reference made by the smaller bench to the larger bench is not
valid and the reference can be rejected by the larger bench.

2. A RE-MIGRATED PERSON BELONGING TO A SCHEDULE CASTE OF X NOMENCLATURE

RECOGNIZED BY THE PRESIDENTIAL ORDER OF 1961 IN THE ERSTWHILE STATE A IS NOT
ENTITLED FOR BENEFITS GIVEN BY THE RE-ORGANIZED STATE B AND C, WHEN THE
SCHEDULE CAST OF X NOMENCLATURE IS ALSO RECOGNIZED IN THOSE STATES RE-
ORGANIZED AS WELL.

2.1. RE-ORGANIZATION OF MORASTRA IS VALID UNDER ARTICLE 3 OF THE

CONSTITUTION OF MAHISURU

(¶ 11.) As per Article 3 of the Constitution of Mahisuru “Parliament may by law form a new
State by separation of territory from any State or by uniting two or more States or parts of
States or by uniting any territory to a part of any State or increase the area of any State or
diminish the area of any State or alter the boundaries of any State or alter the name of any
State”.5

(¶ 12.) It is humbly submitted that the parliament is empowered under article 3 to make
an act for reorganization of states and thus the Morastra Re-organization Act of 1974
enacted by parliament in the year 1974 of republic of Mahisuru 6 is validly and
constitutionally enacted and passed. Thus, Re-organization of Morastra is valid under
article 3 of the constitution of Mahisuru.

2.2. PRESIDENT HAS VALIDLY CONSIDERED MAKI TRIBE AS ST.

(¶ 13.) As per article 341 of the Constitution of Mahisuru provides that “the President
may with respect to any State or Union territory after consultation with the Governor 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, as the case may be.”7

5
Constitution of India, Article 3.
6
Moot proposition, pg 11.
7
Constitution of India, Article 341.

Page | 3
TH
6 INTRA-CUM-INTER BATCH MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2018
MEMORANDUM for RESPONDENT ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

(¶ 14.) It is humbly submitted that president is empowered to consider a tribe or caste as

schedule caste and schedule tribe in particular state. The presidential order of 1961 and
the presidential order of 1962 considering the Maki tribe as schedule tribes in the state of
Morastra is constitutionally enacted using the power under article 341 of Constitution of
Mahisuru. Thus, the president has validly considered Maki tribe as ST.

2.3. PERSON TO BE ELIGIBLE FOR RESERVATION UNDER SC/ST OF ANY PARTICULAR

STATE MUST BE A RESIDENT OF THE STATE DURING THE ENACTMENT OF THE PRESIDENTIAL

ORDER DECLARING CASTES AND TRIBES AS SC AND ST RESPECTIVELY.

(¶ 15.) ‘Only those members of the SC/ST who are included as a notified scheduled
tribes in the State and who were and are permanent residents in the State of and in the
localities in which they are notified as on presidential order, would be entitled to be
treated as SC/ST in relation to the State.’8

(¶ 16.) The migrant will not be entitled to the benefits even if such migrant has the same
nomenclature as notified in the State of migration for the benefits in the State of
migration. They would be entitled to benefits only in the State where they were resident
at the time of the State Reorganization Act.9

(¶ 17.) Children of migrants are not entitled to the benefit of reservation even if they have
the same nomenclature as the Scheduled Caste/Schedule Tribe notified for the state.10

(¶ 18.) If a person migrates to a geographical area forming part of another State after the
date of Presidential Notification, such a person will be treated as a migrant.11

(¶ 19.) A migrant would be disentitled for reservation in the state of migration if his caste
is not notified as scheduled caste or scheduled tribe in the state of migration.12

(¶ 20.) It is humbly submitted that the benefits of being SC/ST would be available to only
those persons amongst the notified scheduled tribes who are residents in the localities. To
justify this argument, the example of state of Maharashtra of country India can be taken

8
Bankimchandra Makanbhai Patel Vs. State of Maharashtra and Anr., 2006 (2) MhLj 664
9
Marry Chandrashekhar Rao 's case, 1990 SCR (2) 843
10
Subhash Chandra and Anr. v. Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board and Ors., (2009) 15 SCC 458
11
Marry Chandrashekhar Rao 's case, 1990 SCR (2) 843
12
Ibid

Page | 4
TH
6 INTRA-CUM-INTER BATCH MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2018
MEMORANDUM for RESPONDENT ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

into consideration. In the year 1960, the Bombay Reorganization act came into force by
which Bombay was bifurcated into Gujrat and Maharashtra. when the State of
Maharashtra came into being, if there was a person belonging to any of the notified
scheduled tribes in the State of Maharashtra and if he was resident in the localities in the
State of Maharashtra only then shall such person will be entitled to the benefits as a
member of the scheduled tribe in relation to that State provided he was also resident in
the erstwhile State of Bombay on the date of the Presidential Notification when the new
State of Bombay came into being.

(¶ 21.) It is submitted that a given caste is specified in State A as a Scheduled Caste does
not necessarily mean that the same caste bearing the same nomenclature in another State
B then the person belonging to that caste in state A would be entitled to the rights,
privileges and benefits in another state B.

(¶ 22.) In the present fact scenario, justification to such reasoning can be derived as in the
case of Manvel Murmu v. State of Maharashtra; the reorganization of Morastra act 1974
was passed by parliament which bifurcate the state into Momarastra and Mujrat. The act
was passed after declaration of Maki Tribe as Schedule tribe by presidential order in year
1962.

(¶ 23.) In this case, the Moril Murmu ancestor of Manvel Murmu was born in state of
Morastra in year 1944 and belonged to a class of Scheduled Tribe Known as Maki tribe
declared by presidential order in year 1962. He moved to Dunkun islands in year 1963
and married there. Mr. Manvel Murmu was the son of Moril Murmu and born in Dunkun
island. In meanwhile in the year 1974, State of Morastra was reorganized into two states
namely State of Mujrat and State of Momarastra. Even after reorganization the
reservation to sc/st was continued in both the states. In year 1995 Mr. manvel return to
state of Momaratra and take admission in college under sc/st but later the state denied to
give him the benefit under st category and he didn’t get the degree after completing his
college as the college recognized that he is a migrant and not a resident(ST) of State of
Momrastra.

(¶ 24.) It is submitted that by connecting the dots between the reasoning stated above and
this case, it can be easily derived that Mr. Morul is not entitled to claim of being the ST

Page | 5
TH
6 INTRA-CUM-INTER BATCH MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2018
MEMORANDUM for RESPONDENT ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

of State of Momrastra as he was a ST of Morastra and after re-organization his place of

origin resided in State of Momrastra and there is no document that provides that all the
SC/STs of Morastra will be the same for Mujrat and Momrastra. Moreover, there cannot
be such a document because this will enable the person to claim benefits in two states and
will be contrary to the judgments given in Mari Chandra Shekhar Rao and Action
Committee’s case. Also Mr. Manvel is not entitled to claim the benefits because at the
time when presidential order declaring schedule castes and schedule tribes came Mr.
Manvel was not the resident of the State of Morastra. Also his father was not the ST of
Momrastra and as the father was not entitled to claim the benefits of being the ST of
Momrastra his progenies also cannot claim the same. Moreover, during the time when the
State of Morastra was re-organized Mr. Manvel was at Dunkun Island which is also one
of the reasons which deprive him from being recognized as the ST of State of Momrastra.

(¶ 25.) Thus, a re-migrated person belonging to a schedule caste of X nomenclature

recognized by the presidential order of 1961 in the erstwhile state A is not entitled for
benefits given by the re-organized state B and C, when the schedule cast of X
nomenclature is also recognized in those states re-organized as well.

3. NCR OF ULAN SCHEDULE CASTE (RATIONALIZATION OF

RESERVATION) ACT, 2005 IS CONSTITUTIONALLY VALID

(¶ 26.) It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble court that the NCR of ulan schedule
caste (rationalization of reservation) Act, 2005 is constitutionally valid as per article
15(4), 16(4) and article 341 of the constitution of Mahisuru. The main objective of the
concerned act is to promote the well-being of migrant persons by providing them
reservation in appointments.

3.1. WITHIN AMBIT OF EQUALITY

(¶ 27.) For the purposes of bringing about real equality of opportunity between those who
are unequal, certain reservations are necessary and these should be ensured. Equality
under the Constitution is a dynamic concept which must cover every process of
equalisation. The concerned act follows the rule of differentiation which treats different
class of people differerntly. In the words of Justice Ray “The rule of differentiation is
Page | 6
TH
6 INTRA-CUM-INTER BATCH MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2018
MEMORANDUM for RESPONDENT ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

enacting laws differentiating between different persons or things in different

circumstances. The circumstances which govern one set of persons or objects may not
necessarily be the same as those governing another set of persons or objects so that the
question of unequal treatment does not really arise between persons governed by
different conditions and different sets of circumstances”13.
(¶ 28.) For assuring equality of opportunity, it may be necessary in certain situations to
treat unequally situated persons unequally14. The state here by making special provision
for migrated person has worked in accordance to the rule of differentiation upholding the
essence of equality. Therefore, the counsel humbly submits to the court that the
concerned Act does not infringe the idea of equality

3.2. IN ACCORDANCE TO ARTICLE 15(4)

(¶ 29.) Article 15(4) empowers state to make any special provision for the advancement
of any socially and educationally backward classes of citizens or for the Scheduled
Castes and the Scheduled Tribes15. The scope of the term socially and educationally
backward classes is very wide and the state providing reservation to migrated person can
no doubtley come under its meaning. The counsel hereby submits that the concerned act
is within the meaning of Article 15(4).

3.3. IN ACCORDANCE TO ARTICLE 16(4)

(¶ 30.) According to section 16(4) State can make any provision for the reservation in
appointments or posts in favour of any backward class of citizens which, in the opinion of
the State, is not adequately represented in the services under the State. 16 Article 16(4)
recognises only one class viz., "backward class of citizens". It does not speak separately
of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes17. If the state thinks that any migrated person
or any group of such persons are not getting benefits and are socially and educationally
backward, the state can make provisions for the same. In the case of State of Kerala v.
N.M. Thomas, the Supreme Court by majority said that the State was free to choose any

13
State of Kerala v. N.M. Thomas AIR 1976 SC 490,
14
M P Jain, Indian constitutional law, (8th edition, LexisNexis 2018).
15
The constitution of India 1950, Article 15(4).
16
ibid
17
Indra sawhney v. UOI AIR 1993 SC 477

Page | 7
TH
6 INTRA-CUM-INTER BATCH MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2018
MEMORANDUM for RESPONDENT ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

“means” to achieve equality for backward classes.18 Any means in the concerned case is
the reservation for migrated person. The counsel humbly submits that the concerned act is
in accordance to article 16(4)

3.4. FOLLOWS DIRECTIVE PRINCIPLES

(¶ 31.) Directive principles are the guidelines which states ought to keep in mind while
formulating any act. Article 46 of DPSP talks about ‘weaker section’ and its upliftment.
The states while formulating policies can consider migrants in the category of weaker
section as the term has wider meaning. In the case of Society for un-aided private school
of Rajasthan v UOI the supreme court held that the expression ‘weaker section’ in article
46 is wider than ‘backward class’19. The backward citizens in article 16(4) do not
comprise of all the weaker sections of people but only those which are socially,
educationally and economically backward, and which are not adequately represented in
the services under the state. Further the expression ‘weaker section’ can also take within
it its compass individuals who constitute weaker sections or weaker part of the society20.

(¶ 32.) The concerned act has left no room for doubt by giving reservation to migrants.
The act follows both fundamental rights and DPSP strictly adhering to the principles
giving enough room for inclusion of term migrant in backward and weaker section.
Therefore, the counsel hereby submits that the concerned act follows the DPSP which
state follows while formulating policies.

3.5. MIGRANT CLAUSE IS APPLICABLE

(¶ 33.) In order to prove that the concerned act is inconsistent with the constitution it is
very important to check the applicability of the act. In the case of S. Pushpa and Ors. v.
Sivachanmugavelu and Ors. it was held that if a schedule caste is recognised in one
state/UT and if any member of that schedule caste moves to another state/UT, he is
entitled to get benefits if that particular state/UT in which he migrated if the state/UT has
enacted some special provisions for migrant persons.21

18
State of Kerala v. N.M. Thomas AIR 1976 SC 490,
19
Society for un-aided private school of Rajasthan v UOI AIR 2012 SC 3445 (3490)
20
M P Jain, Indian constitutional law, (8th edition, LexisNexis 2018)
21
S. Pushpa and Ors. v. Sivachanmugavelu and Ors AIR 2005 SC 1038.

Page | 8
TH
6 INTRA-CUM-INTER BATCH MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2018
MEMORANDUM for RESPONDENT ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

(¶ 34.) In the present case the presidential order of 1961 declared Urvi three as schedule
caste in state of Bagyapuri and NCT of Ulan. The migrant clause in the aforesaid act will
be applicable to the persons of both the states. Based on the decision of the above
mentioned case the counsel appearing for respondent would like to submit that the 2%
reservation given to the migrated person in concerned act is applicable. Thus, counsel
hereby submits that there is no doubt in migration clause and the clause is strictly
applicable

Page | 9
TH
6 INTRA-CUM-INTER BATCH MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2018
MEMORANDUM for RESPONDENT PRAYER

PRAYER

Wherefore, in the light of the facts displayed, issues raised, disputes advanced and controls
alluded to Court, it is most compliantly asked and implored before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of
Mahisuru generously announce and declare that this Hon'ble Court may be fulfilled to: -
1. Hold that the reference by a smaller bench could be rejected at the threshold by a larger
bench.
2. Do not entitle re-migrated person belonging to a Scheduled Caste of X Nomenclature
recognized by the Presidential Order of 1961 in the erstwhile State A for benefits given
by the Re-organized State B and C. when the Scheduled Caste of X Nomenclature is also
recognized in those States reorganized States as well.
3. Declare Ulan Scheduled Caste (rationalization of reservation Act), 2005 as constitutional.

The Court being satisfied may in like manner make any such demand as it may regard fit in the
light of Justice, Equity and Good Conscience.
And for this demonstration of kindness the respondent might as compelled bound ever humble
pray.
Respectfully submitted
S/d
(Counsel Appearing for Respondent)

Page | XI
TH
6 INTRA-CUM-INTER BATCH MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2018