Heard Mr. H.K. Sarma, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners. The respondent Nos.1 to 3 are represented by Mr. J. Handique, the learned Govt. advocate. The learned Sr. counsel Mr. M.K. Choudhury appears for the respondent No.4.

2. The petitioners belong to the Schedule Tribe (ST) category and they offered their candidatures for the posts of Junior Assistant in the establishment of the D.C., Sonitpur, by responding to the advertisement dated 20.03.2007 (Annexure-1). After the selection exercise, the respondent No.4 Banti Doley was appointed to one of the posts earmarked for ST(P) category candidates, through the appointment order dated 22.02.2008 (Annexure-4). The petitioners challenge the appointment of respondent No.4 by contending that she was born to Ahom parents, who belong to the OBC category and therefore she cannot claim tribal status through her marriage to an ST(P) category person.

3. According to the petitioners the caste status of a person do not get altered by marriage and a person born to OBC parents will carry the parents category even though, she may have married a person of tribal category. In support of this proposition, the learned counsel Mr. H.K. Sarma relies on Sandhya Thakur Vs. Vimla Devi Kushwah reported in (2005)2 SCC 731.

4. On the other hand, Mr. M.K. Choudhury, the learned Sr. counsel submits that the respondent No.4 was married to an ST(P) category person at the tender age of 9 years and since then she has assimilated herself with the tribal rites and rituals of her husband’s family. She also uses the tribal surname Doley of her husband since her marriage. Therefore it is argued that the respondent No.4 has transplanted herself into the tribal community and since she was accepted as a tribal by her husband’s family and the community elders, she deserves the benefit of an ST(P) category person on the strength of the certificate granted to her by the authorities.

5. On behalf of the State authorities, Mr. J. Handique, the learned Govt. advocate submits that after the tribal status of the respondent No.4 was questioned by the petitioners, an enquiry was conducted and he refers to the report given by the Addl. D.C., Sonitpur, on 31.07.2008 to project that the respondent No.4 having been born to Ahom parents, should not have been issued the ST(P) certificate by virtue of her marriage to her husband Jadu Ram Doley, who belongs to the tribal community.

6. In Valsamma Paul Vs. Cochin University reported in (1996)3 SCC 545, the Supreme Court was examining the change of caste status of forward community lady after her marriage to a person of reserved community. After analyzing the previous decisions, the Apex Court opined that when a person is transplanted amongst disadvantaged people, she must be subjected to the same sufferings and disadvantages, to avail the facility of reservation and a person born to an advantageous class cannot acquire the status of reserved category by voluntary mobility into those categories, as that would play fraud on the Constitution. Relying on the ratio of Valsamma Paul (supra), the private respondent argues that from the age of 9 she suffered the same disadvantages as suffered by a tribal person and therefore her being born to OBC parents should not deprive her of the benefits of the ST(P) category, as her husband’s community have accepted her as a member of their community.

7. The Supreme Court took note of the decision in Valsamma Paul (supra) in its subsequent decision in Sandhya Thakur (supra) and the Court categorically held that a person born to a backward class, cannot claim the status of a reserved caste or community, on the basis of her marriage to a male of that community.

8. In Rajendra Shrivastava Vs. The State of Maharashtra reported in 2010(112) BOMLR 762, a Division Bench of Bombay High Court culled out the ratio of the judgment in Valsamma Paul (supra) and opined as under:-

“………………….

12. When a woman born in a scheduled caste or scheduled tr