A migrant cannot claim the benefit of reservation in the migrated state, as established by previous judgments.

JUDGMENT

Dinesh Mehta, J. - The petitioner has preferred the present writ petition feeling aggrieved of rejection of her candidature under SC category.

2. The petitioner, daughter of Shri Sukhram - a resident of Madhya Pradesh, was having certificate of Scheduled Caste in her favour.

3. Pursuant to her marriage to one Praveen Kumar Raidas, the petitioner migrated to the State of Rajasthan.

4. On the basis of the certificate dated 10.06.2019, petitioner applied for the post of Female Health Worker (ANM).

5. Petitioner's candidature was rejected by the respondents as according to them she cannot be treated to be a Scheduled Caste of the State of Rajasthan for the purpose of claiming reservation.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that petitioner's candidature as a Scheduled Caste cannot be rejected, as she is having a validly issued certificate dated 10.06.2019, issued by an Authority of District Ratlam, Madhya Pradesh.

7. This Court does not find any substance in petitioner's claim in light of judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ranjana Kumari v. State of Uttrakhand, (2018) 14 Scale 755 so also the judgments rendered by this Court in Sushila Kumari v. State of Rajasthan : SB Civil Writ Petition No. 824/2020, decided on 20.02.2020 and State of Rajasthan v. Chitra Devi : DB Special Appeal (Writ) No. 1960/2018, decided on 13.08.2019, wherein considering the law on the subject at hands, has decided the issue as against the petitioners.

8. A gainful reference of the Division Bench judgment in the case of Chitra Devi (supra) would be apt for present purposes and is being reproduced hereinunder:

'In the light of above discussion, this Court is of the opinion that the respondents could not have claimed the benefit of SC/ST status merely on the basis that they were issued Rajasthan certificates, and that they were residing in Rajasthan. Their claim to that status did not satisfy clause 4(iv) and 4(viii). Accordingly, the Single Judge fell into an error in granting the direction having regard to the circumstances of the case.

For the foregoing reasons, the appeals have to be allowed. The impugned judgments are hereby set aside. The State's appeals are allowed. All pending applications are disposed of.'

9. Thus, it is settled preposition of law that a migrant cannot claim benefit of reservation in the migrated State, which in the present case is the State of Rajasthan.

10. Following the above referred judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court so also judgments in the case of Chitra Devi (supra) and Sushila Kumari (supra) rendered by this Court, the writ petition at hands is dismissed.

11. The stay application is also dismissed.