Back
2019 Supreme(Raj) 409
IN THE HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN
Pushpendra Singh Bhati, J.
MAMTA RANI - Appellant
Vs.
STATE OF RAJASTHAN, THR. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, HANUMANGARH AND OTHERS - Respondent
Civil Writ Petition No. 7282 of 2019
Decided on : 28-05-2019
For the Appellant : Mr. Rakesh Matoria, Adv.
For the Respondent: Mr. Sunil Beniwal, AAG
A reserved category candidate from one state is not entitled to reservation in the same category in another state upon migration due to marriage, adoption, or conversion.
Headnote:
RESERVED CATEGORY - MIGRATION - OBC RESERVATION - MARRIAGE - [ARTICLES 15(4), 16(4), 341, 342 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA]
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, belonging to the OBC category in Haryana, married a person from the OBC category in Rajasthan and sought OBC reservation in Rajasthan based on her marriage.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that a reserved category candidate from one state is not entitled to reservation in the same category in another state upon migration due to marriage, adoption, or conversion.
Issues: Whether a reserved category candidate from one state is entitled to reservation in the same category in another state upon migration due to marriage, adoption, or conversion.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on several Supreme Court judgments, including Marri Chandra Shekhar Rao v. Dean, Seth G.S. Medical College and others, Action Committee on Issue of Caste Certificate to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes in the State of Maharashtra and another v. Union of India and another, Mrs. Valsamma Paul v. Cochin University and others, Ranjana Kumari v. State of Uttarakhand & Ors., and Bir Singh. v. Delhi Jal Board and others, to establish the principle that reservation benefits are limited to the state where the caste or tribe is recognized as such.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the petition, holding that the petitioner was not entitled to OBC reservation in Rajasthan based on her marriage to a person from the OBC category in that state.
1. Learned counsel for the parties agree that the matter is squarely covered by the judgment rendered by this Court in the matter of Saroj Kumari v. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5521/2019) decided on 22.04.2019. The order dated 22.04.2019 reads as under:-
"1. The petitioner has preferred the present writ petition claiming the following relief:-
"It is, therefore, prayed that this writ petition may kindly be allowed and:-
(i) by an appropriate writ, order or direction, the verbal refusal of the respondent Tehsildar Tibbi, District Hanumangarh from issuing the OBC caste certificate may kindly be declared illegal and arbitrary;
(ii) by an appropriate writ, order or direction, the respondent Tehsildar Tibbi, District Hanumangarh may kindly be directed to issue OBC caste certificate to the petitioner forthwith;"
2.1 The petitioner belongs to the State of Haryana and she falls in O.B.C. category. Her husband belongs to OBC category of State of Rajasthan. After marriage, the petitioner claims that as she undisputedly belongs to OBC category in State of Haryana and her husband also belongs to OBC category in State of Rajasthan, therefore, she deserves to be given OBC reservation in Rajasthan.
2.2 The broad question of law under consideration is as to whether any reserved category candidate of one State would be entitled for reservation in the same reserved category in another State on account of migration upon marriage, adoption, conversion etc.
3.1 Learned AAG while addressing the broad legal proposition submits that the Honble Apex Court has repeatedly reiterated the law that a reserved category candidate would not be entitled for the same reservation once he/she migrates from his original State on count of marriage, adoption or conversion. Learned AAG has relied upon the judgment of Honble Supreme Court in the case of Marri Chandra Shekhar Rao. v. Dean, Seth G.S. Medical College and others, reported in (1990) 3 SCC 130, the relevant para 10 whereof reads as below:-
"10. It has, however, to be borne in mind that a man does not cease to belong to his caste by migration to a better or more socially free and liberal atmosphere. But if sufficiently long time is spent in socially advanced area then the inhibitions and handicaps suffered by belonging to a socially disadvantageous community do not continue and the natural talent of a man or a woman or a boy or girl gets full scope to flourish. These, however, are problems of social adjustment i.e. how far protection has to be given to a certain segment of socially disadvantaged community and for how long to become equal with others is a matter of delicate social adjustment. These must be so balanced in the mosaic of the countrys integrity that no section or community should cause detriment or discontentment to other community or part of community or section. Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes belonging to a particular area of the country must be given protection so long as and to the extent they are entitled in order to become equal with others. But equally those who go to other areas should also ensure that they make way for the disadvantaged and disabled of that part of the community who suffer from inabilities in those areas. In other words, Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes say of Andhra Pradesh do require necessary protection as balanced between other communities. But equally the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes say of Maharashtra in the instant case, do require protection in the State of Maharashtra, which will have to be in balance to other communities. This must be the basic approach to the problem. If one bears this basic approach in mind, then the determination of the controversy in the instant case does not become difficult. For the purpose of understanding the problem, it may be worthwhile to refer to the Report of the Joint Committee of the Parliament on the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Amendment) Order Bill, 1967. It may also
