The main legal point established in the judgment is that for claiming reservation in a state, a person must belong to the Scheduled Caste/Tribe of that particular state, as per the relevant notification issued for that state.

JUDGMENT :

Dinesh Mehta, J.

1. The petitioners in the present writ petitions have approached this Court with a common grievance that their candidature has been considered in TSP-General category though they had applied under TSP-ST category.

2. The question that has cropped up for consideration of this Court is: 'whether a female candidate, after marrying a person of TSP-ST, migrates to the State of Rajasthan, can claim caste based reservation also, while taking TSP reservation benefits in terms of the notification dated 21.10.2019 issued by the Governor of Rajasthan?'

3. As all the petitions involve common questions of facts, they are being decided conjointly; however, for the sake of convenience, facts of Dashi Devi Damor vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (SBCWP No. 18320/2019) are being taken into account.

4. State issued a recruitment notification dated 18.06.2018 and invited applications for 637 posts of Female Health Worker for TSP Area, out of which 336 posts were reserved for candidates belonging to Scheduled Tribes. The petitioner applied for the post of Female Health Worker pursuant to the above recruitment notification and submitted her online application form on 28.06.2018.

5. While furnishing the application form, petitioner asserted her candidature as a TSP-ST candidate and relied upon a Domicile certificate and Caste certificate issued with her husband's name.

6. Petitioner was called for document verification on 02.07.2019 and her name was shown as a candidate of TSP-ST category.

7. Petitioner's name was not shown in the final select list of TSP-ST candidates. However, her name was shown in the reserve list of TSP-General candidates.

8. The petitioner has preferred the present writ petition with a grievance that her candidature ought to have been considered as TSP-ST candidate. It is the case of the petitioner that if she were considered under TSP-ST category, she would have secured place in final select list.

9. Inviting Court's attention towards the certificates dated 16.08.2012 and 14.01.2015 issued by the Tehsildar Seemalwara, District Dungarpur, so also the certificate dated 29.01.2016, issued by Taluka Vikas Adhikari, Kadana (State of Gujarat), learned counsel submitted that the petitioner is having domicile certificate, so also caste certificate issued by the competent authority of State of Rajasthan, which evince that the petitioner is a resident of TSP area and a Scheduled Tribe in the State of Rajasthan. He thus, argued that the respondents were required to consider the petitioner as a TSP-ST candidate.

10. Mr. Pankaj Mehta, learned counsel for the petitioner, invited Court's attention towards notification dated 21.10.2019, issued by the Governor in exercise of powers under Article 244(1) of the Constitution of India and submitted that it categorically provides that any person who migrates to the State of Rajasthan, after marriage, shall be treated to be a person of TSP Area of the State of Rajasthan.

11. Placing reliance upon notification dated 21.10.2019, learned counsel contended that if the State can confer benefits of TSP area to a woman marrying a resident of TSP area of Rajasthan, how can State justifiably deny benefits of reservation to the petitioner and other similarly situated person (who have migrated to Rajasthan after marriage) and refuse to consider them under reserved categories of the State?

12. While maintaining that petitioner's caste has been recognized as Scheduled Tribe in the State of Rajasthan as well as in Gujarat, learned counsel argued that the notification dated 21.10.2019, clearly provides that an ST candidate of TSP area of other State, if migrates to State of Rajasthan after marrying an ST resident of TSP area of Rajasthan, she shall be considered to be an ST candidate of TSP area for the State of Rajasthan.

13. Mr. Pankaj Mehta added that the notification which has been issued for the purpose of grant of employment and with a view to resolve the dispute regarding daughter-in-laws of the