Marriages across states do not entitle individuals to claim reservation in the migrated state, and reservation to SC/ST and OBC categories is based on paternity. The significance of Presidential Orders and state policies on domicile and residential status in determining reservation eligibility was also emphasized.

JUDGMENT

1. Petitioner vied for the post of School Lecturer, subject Economics pursuant to recruitment notification dated 13.04.2018 issued by the Rajasthan Public Service Commission.

2. The petitioner who is an OBC, born in Haryana, has moved to Rajasthan after her marriage with Jagdish Chandra - a person belonging to OBC (Non-Creamy Layer) category in the State of Rajasthan.

3. The petitioner has claimed her candidature as an OBC candidate, however the respondents have considered her candidature under General category.

4. According to the respondents, petitioner being originally a resident of Haryana can claim benefit of reservation only in the State of Haryana and not in Rajasthan.

5. The issue is no more res-integra, as this Court in the case of Usha Kumari v. State of Rajasthan (SBCWP No.6475/2019) and Sushila Kumari v. State of Rajasthan & Ors (SBCWP NO.824/2020) has categorically held that an out of State resident, in spite of marrying a person belonging to OBC (NCL) category in the State of Rajasthan can not claim benefit of OBC (NCL) category for other State.

6. The operative portion of the judgment rendered in Sushila Kumari (supra), reads thus:

9. So far as reliance upon notifications dated 21.10.2019 and 10.02.2020 are concerned, in the opinion of this Court, the petitioner cannot claim parity on such basis. The reason is that, by virtue of notification dated 21.10.2019, residents of other State, marrying a resident of TSP area, have been treated as resident of TSP area, but in that event, candidature of such woman is required to be considered as a candidate of unreserved (Open) category of TSP area and not as an SC/ST on the basis of her caste.

10. On appraisal of the facts and law involved in the case of Abhinav Dipak Bhai Patel (supra), this Court finds that it was a case of grant of weightage to a resident of Dadra and Nagar Haveli, whose claim for bonus marks was rejected by the employer as the applicant in such case was not an original resident of Dadra and Nagar Haveli and was a candidate, who migrated to such Union Territory. Dealing with the presidential notification issued by the Union Territory of Dadra & Nagar Haveli, Hon'ble the Apex Court held that such notification extends benefits of reservation on the basis of residence and not on the basis of origin.

11. So far as the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner is concerned, this Court accepts the position that after marriage the petitioner, for all practical purposes, is a resident/domicile of the State of Rajasthan.

12. The reservation to SC/ST or even to OBC candidate is not solely dependent upon the residence of a person but the same is governed by the constitutional provisions; relevant provisions of reservation and law laid down in this regard.

13. According to the advertisement in question, reservation in SC/ST and OBC category is available to a candidate on the basis of his/her paternity i.e. on the basis of caste and residence of his/her father.

14. Considering all the arguments and even the recent judgment cited by Mr. Bishnoi in the case of Abhinav Deepk Bhai Patel (supra), a Division Bench of this Court allowed the appeal filed by the State vide its judgment dated 13.08.2019 [D.B. Special Appeal (Writs) No.1960/2018 : State of Rajasthan v. Chitra Devi], holding thus:-

"The observations of the Supreme Court, in the cases relied on by the respondents, in the opinion of this Court, are not determinative. Significantly, the Supreme Court noted that it is left to the Parliament to consider the appropriate legislation with regard to the treatment to be given to members of Scheduled Caste or other reserved category who migrate from one State to another. The rationale for this is simple; it is only Parliament which has the authority to amend SC/ST Orders in relation to any State or States or Union Territory, as the case may be. The structure of the SC/ST orders and the scheme, as existing, entitle only members of a community who belong to the