Himachal Pradesh High Court
Reenu vs State Of H.P. &Anr on 26 March, 2025
Author: Jyotsna Rewal Dua
Bench: Jyotsna Rewal Dua
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
CWP No.2922 of 2022
Date of decision: 26.03.2025
Reenu. …Petitioner.
Versus
State of H.P. &Anr. ...Respondents.
Coram:
Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting?
For the petitioners : Mr. N.K. Verma, Advocate.
For the respondents : Mr. L.N. Sharma, Additional
Advocate General, for
respondent No.1-State.
: Ms. Suchitra Sen, Advocate, for
respondent No.2.
Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge
Petitioner participated in a selection process for a
Scheduled Caste (Unreserved) category post under an
advertisement issued by respondent No.2 on 02.03.2020. Her
candidature was rejected by the respondents. Feeling
aggrieved petitioner has instituted this writ petition.
2. Facts.
2(i). Respondent No.2 issued an advertisement on
02.03.2020 initiating selection process for several categories
of posts, including post of Trained Graduate Teacher (Arts).
In this category, 62 posts were advertised for candidates
2
belonging to Scheduled Caste (Unreserved) category.
Petitioner along with others applied for the post of TGT (Arts)
under SC(UR) quota. Her result of written examination was
declared in December 2021, wherein she secured 43.50
marks. Petitioner was also called for evaluation of marks.
Her total tally of marks came to 47.42. The respondents
rejected petitioner’s candidature on the ground that
petitioner had not produced the certificate of her belonging to
Scheduled Caste category on parental basis. The petitioner
produced the caste certificate from her parental side,
according to which she belonged to Ramdasia caste, which
was recognized as Scheduled Caste in State of Punjab.
Petitioner also produced her Bona fide Himachali certificate.
The caste certificate produced by the petitioner was not
accepted by the respondents and her candidature was
rejected.
2(ii). The petitioner feels aggrieved against the rejection
of her certificate. Her contention is that she was required to
be considered for the posts meant for SC (UR) category. She
had scored 47.42 marks in all, which were above 46.95
marks, i.e. the cut-off marks in the said category. With this
1Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes
3
grievance, petitioner has instituted the writ petition.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner placed
reliance upon Pinki Bagga vs. State of H.P. & Ors. 1 and on
that basis submitted that in view of Scheduled Tribe
certificate produced by the petitioner on parental basis as
well as Bona fide Himachali certificate, the action of the
respondents in cancelling the candidature of the petitioner
as SC (UR) category candidate was not in consonance with
the law laid down in aforesaid decision.
4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and
considered the case file.
4(i). In Pinki Bagga’s1 case, petitioner’s candidature
had been converted from SC (UR) to General category. The
petitioner (therein) had grievance against conversion of her
candidate from SC (UR) to General category. She was issued
a caste certificate to the effect that she belonged to Ramdasia
caste recognized as Scheduled Caste in the State of Punjab.
Petitioner (therein) had solemnized marriage with a resident
of Himachal Pradesh. She was issued a Bona fide Himachali
certificate. Scheduled Caste certificate was also issued in her
favour certifying that she belonged to Ramdasia caste,
1
CWP No.8181 of 2021 decided on 20.04.2022.
1Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes
4
considered as Scheduled Caste in the State of Himachal
Pradesh. The Hon’ble Division Bench allowed the writ
petition filed by Pinki Bagga, placing reliance upon decisions
rendered in Naveen Kumari vs. State of H.P. &
Others2and State of H.P. and Others vs. Smt. Naveen
Kumari3. It was observed that in the aforesaid decisions it
had been held that ‘when a person is issued a Bona fide
Certificate, it means that he/she is a permanent resident of
the State for all intents and purposes as he/she has
intention to live permanently there and he/she no longer
remains a migrant.’ Hon’ble Division Bench further held that
‘a person after her marriage no more remains a migrant and
she for all intents and purposes is now settled in the house
of her husband.’ Relevant paras from the decision are as
under:-
“5. Shri Vikas Rathore, learned Additional Advocate General, while placing
reliance upon the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in Ranjana vs. State
of Uttrakhand 2019 SCC(15) 664, vehemently argued that merely
because in migrant State some caste is recognized as SC, migrant
cannot be recognized as SC of migrant State. However, he was unable
to dispute that Executive Magistrate, Nurpur besides issuing caste
certificate in favour of petitioner also issued Bonafide Himachali
Certificate in her favour certifying therein that she is permanent
resident of Himachal Pradesh.
7. In support of his aforesaid contention, Mr.Harish Kumar Verma,
learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, invited the attention of this
Court to the judgment dated 22.02.2021 passed by a Division Bench of
this Court in CWP No.5951 of 2020, titled as Naveen Kumari vs. State
of H.P. & Others and judgment dated 04.09.2021, passed by same
2
CWP No.2651 of 2020 decided on 04.09.2021.
3
Review Petition No.47 of 2021 decided on 04.09.2021.
1Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes
5
Division Bench in Review Petition No.47 of 2021, titled as State of H.P.
and Others vs. Smt.Naveen Kumari, wherein it has been categorically
held that when a person is issued a Bonafide Certificate, it means that
he/she is a permanent resident of State, for all intents and purposes
as he/she has intention to live permanently there and he/she remains
no more a migrant. Division Bench has further held that a person after
her marriage no more remains a migrant, and she for all intents and
purposes is now settled in the house of her husband. It would be apt to
take note of the following paras:-
xxx xxx xxx
8. Reliance is also placed upon judgment passed by aforesaid Division
Bench in Review Petition No.47 of 2021 supra wherein the Division
Bench of this Court has held as under:-
xxx xxx xxx
9. In view of aforesaid law laid down by Division Bench of this Court,
grounds raised by respondents-State to defeat the claim of the
petitioner are not sustainable and as such deserve outright rejection.
Reply filed on behalf of respondents No.1 and 2 i.e. State of Himachal
Pradesh clearly reveals that the aforesaid judgment passed by Division
Bench of this Court has attained finality and in terms of directions
contained in the aforesaid judgment, the Deputy Director, Elementary
Education, Kangra at Dharamshala, being Cadre Controlling and
Appointing Authority in respect of Classical and Vernacular Teachers,
declared the result of the petitioner in that case and offered her
appointment as Language Teacher under SC category on contract basis
in Government High School, Ghandran, District Kangra vide his Office
Order dated 28th October, 2021.
11. Consequently, in view of above, this Court finds merit in the instant
petition and the same is allowed and the action of respondents in
treating the candidature of the petitioner under General unreserved
category instead of Scheduled Caste unreserved category is held to be
bad and accordingly the same is quashed and set aside and the
respondent-No.3 is directed to consider the candidature of the petitioner
against the category of Scheduled Caste unreserved and accordingly
offer her appointment against the post in question, if she is otherwise
eligible. Since petitioner has already suffered for a considerable time,
this Court hopes and trusts that the needful shall be done by the
competent authority expeditiously, preferably within a period of four
weeks from today. Pending applications, if any, are also disposed of.”
Learned counsel has placed heavy reliance upon
the above decision in support of petitioner’s case.
4(ii). It is pertinent to take note of a subsequent
decision rendered by the Hon’ble Division Bench in Subeena
1Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes
6
Sabri vs. State of H.P. & Ors.4. In Subeena Sabri4,
petitioner was born in State of Bihar and belonged to Ansari
Caste, which had been declared as Other Backward Class
(OBC) in State of Bihar. She married a bonafide resident of
State of Himachal Pradesh, who belonged to a caste declared
as OBC in State of Himachal Pradesh. Petitioner had been
issued a Bonafide Himachali Certificate based upon her
marriage and residence in the State of Himachal Pradesh.
She was not issued Certificate of eligibility for reservation of
jobs for OBC. The issue for determination before the Court
was whether the petitioner, by virtue of being married to a
person belonging to the OBC category in Himachal Pradesh,
or by inclusion of the original caste of the petitioner in the
list of Other Backward Classes in Himachal Pradesh, was
entitled to the issuance of a certificate of eligibility for
reservation of job for the OBC category in the State of
Himachal Pradesh.
While deciding Subeena Sabri4, the Court also
considered Ranjana Kumari Versus State of Uttarakhand
and others5. In the said case, the appellant belonged to
Valmiki Caste (Scheduled Caste) of State of Punjab. She
4
CWP No.8043 of 2021 decided on 19.05.2022.
5
(2019) 15 SCC 664
1Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes
7
married a person belonging to Valmiki Caste of Uttarakhand
and migrated to that State. In State of Uttarakhand, under
the Presidential Order ‘Valmiki’ is recognized as notified
Scheduled Caste. State of Uttarakhand issued a certificate to
the appellant. The High Court rejected appellant’s contention
that she was a Scheduled Caste of State of Uttarakhand.
Hon’ble Apex Court dismissed the appeal and affirmed the
decision of the High Court as under:-
“4. Two Constitution Bench judgments of this Court in Marri Chandra
Shekhar Rao v. Seth G.S. Medical College and Action Committee on
Issue of Caste Certificate to SCs/STs v. Union of India have taken the
view that merely beause in the migrant State the same caste is
recognised as Scheduled Caste, the migrant cannot be recognised as
Scheduled Caste of the migrant State. The issuance of a caste
certificate by the State of Uttarakhand, as in the present case, cannot
dilute the rigours of the Constitution Bench judgments in Marri
Chandra Shekhar Rao and Action Committee.
Subeena Sabri4 noticed Bhadar Ram vs. Jassa
Ram & others6, wherein above judgment was followed.
The Court declined to grant relief to the petitioner
and observed that the fact that petitioner (Subeena Sabri) is
married in State of Himachal Pradesh to a person belonging
to OBC and even the caste to which the petitioner belongs in
the State of her origin, has been declared as OBC in State of
Himachal Pradesh, cannot be held sufficient to carve out an
exception of law as declared by Hon’ble Apex Court. After
6
2022 (4) SCC 259
1Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes
8exhaustively deliberating over the issue and taking note of
several precedents in timeline from the High Courts and from
the Hon’ble Apex Court, the Division Bench held that the
view taken in State of H.P. and Others vs. Smt. Naveen
Kumari3 (relied upon in case of Pinki Bagga1), was per
incuriam. Relevant portion of the judgment reads as under:-
“14. Thus, the Coordinate Bench of this Court, while
partly allowing the Review Petition No. 47 of 2021 held
paragraphs 6 to 8 thereof, per incuriam. However, it
was held that since none of the judgments referred
before it had dealt with a situation where a person
having migrated from one State to another had married
in the migratee State and had been granted a bonafide
resident certificate in that State, therefore, a person
under such category could not be denied the benefit of
having a certificate of SC/ST/OBC, as the case may
be, in the migratee State.
15. With due deference to the judgment passed by
the Coordinate Bench of this Court in Naveen Kumari’s
case (supra), we are not inclined to scribe to the view
taken by the said bench, for the reasons that in
Ranjana Kumari vs. State of Uttaranchal & others
(Civil Appeal No. 8425 of 2013), a two Judges Bench of
Hon’ble Supreme Court had referred to larger
bench,the question as noticed above, which already
was germane with the issue as noticed in Naveen
Kumari (supra).
19. In our considered view, in none of the
judgments noticed by the Coordinate Bench of this
court while deciding Review Petition No. 47 of 2021,
scope for any exception was left. It cannot be
overlooked that in all the cases the purpose was to
protect the salutary principle enshrined in Articles 341
& 342 of the Constitution of India. To achieve such
purpose, Hon’ble Apex Court repeatedly has held that
migration for whatsoever reason, from one State to
another, cannot be a sufficient ground for claiming
benefit of being SC/ST/OBC in the migratee state. The
objective criteria for declaration of a particular Caste or
Tribe as SC/ST/OBC in one State is the specific level
of backwardness, social disparage and economic
disadvantages prevalent in such state. Though, one1Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes
9Caste notified as Scheduled Caste/ tribe/ OBC in one
State may also find place in the list of notified
Scheduled Caste/ Tribe/OBC in the other, but the
same has not been held to be sufficient for
claiming the benefit in other State by a person
after migration for the reason that the degree of
disadvantages of various elements which
constitute the data for specification may be
entirely different. The migrations be it voluntary
or involuntary have been taken care of in the
judgments passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court,
as noticed above. Thus, in our considered view,
mere grant of a certificate of bona fide resident
to a person by the migratee State after her
marriage in such State cannot be an exception.
The view taken by a Coordinate Bench in Review
Petition No. 47 of 2021, titled State of H.P. &
others Vs Navin Kumari to that effect, in our
understanding, is per incuriam.
20. In the instant case, the facts that
petitioner is married in the State of Himachal
Pradesh to a person belonging to OBC and even
the Caste to which the petitioner belonged in the
State of her origin has been declared as a OBC in
the State of Himachal Pradesh, cannot be held
sufficient to carve out an exception to the
mandate of law, as declared by Hon’ble Supreme
Court in Marri Chandra Shekhar Rao vs. Deen, Seth
G.S. Medical College and others 1990 (3) SCC, 130,
Action Committee on issue of Caste Certificate to
Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes in the State of
Maharashtra and another vs. Union of India and
others, 1994 (5) SCC, 244 and Subhash Chandra and
another vs. Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board
and others 2009 (15) SCC, 458, Pankaj Kumar vs.
State of Jharkhand & others, 2021 SCC (online) SC
616 and Ranjana Kumari Vs State of Uttaranchal 2019
(15) SCC 664.”
In view of decision in case of Subeena Sabri4,
wherein the judgment relied upon and which formed the
basis of decision in case of Pinki Bagga1, was held as per
incuriam, the relief as prayed for by the petitioner cannot be
1Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes
10
granted to her. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed.
Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, to also stand
disposed of.
Jyotsna Rewal Dua
26 March, 2025
th
Judge
(Pardeep)
1Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes
[ad_1]
Source link