A female who has migrated to the State of Rajasthan post marriage is entitled to be issued an OBC certificate, but not entitled to reservation in public employment in the State of Rajasthan.

JUDGMENT

Vijay Bishnoi, J. - This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner being aggrieved with the action of the respondent No. 2-the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Sub Division Nawalgarh, Dist. Jhunjhunu denying to issue OBC category certificate in favour of the petitioner.

2. As per the petitioner, she was originally the resident of State of Haryana, where her caste Kumhar is categorized as OBC. It is contended that petitioner got married to one Manoj Kumar Kumawat, resident of village Rampura Chirana, Tehsil Nawalgarh, District Jhunjhunu, Rajasthan and her husband is also belonging to OBC category. It is the case of the petitioner that when she applied before the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Sub Division Nawalgarh, Dist. Jhunjhunu for issuance of OBC certificate in her favour, her application was rejected on the ground that as she is not the resident of State of Rajasthan, therefore, the caste certificate declaring her to be a member of OBC candidate cannot be issued in her favour.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the caste of the petitioner i.e. Kumhar is categorized as OBC in the State of Haryana as also in the State of Rajasthan. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that action of the respondents of not accepting the petitioner's application for issuing OBC certificate in her favour is illegal and contrary to the law laid down in the various judgments.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the decisions rendered by Division Bench of this Court at Jaipur Bench in State of Rajasthan v. Smt. Manju Yadav (D.B. Special Appeal (W) No. 1116/2018) decided on 18.09.2018, by Single Judge at Jodhpur in Jaspal Kaur v. State of Rajasthan and Ors. (SB Civil Writ Petition No. 1059/2020) decided on 28.01.2020 and by Single Judge at Jaipur Bench in Santosh v. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (SB Civil Writ Petition No. 4713/2020) decided on 20.07.2020.

5. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents is not in a position to dispute the fact that the controversy involved in this writ petition is squarely covered by the above referred decisions.

6. Division Bench of this Court in the case of State of Rajasthan v. Smt. Manju Yadav (supra) has held as under:-

"4. Females outside the State of Rajasthan on migrating to Rajasthan, post marriage may not be entitled to the benefit of reservation in public employment in the State of Rajasthan on account of being a member of a SC or ST or OBC in another State.

5. But these ladies would certainly be entitled to be issued a SC or ST or OBC certificate. For the reason, apart from reservation in public employment these certificates may be relevant for grant of some benefit. For example, it may be a housing scheme. A migrant lady may claim benefit on the strength of the certificate if the scheme envisages domicile or residence as the entitlement for a house or a flat with reservation provided.

6. Under the circumstances, we find no infirmity in the directions issued by the learned Single Judge as to what procedure needs to be followed for grant of an OBC certificate applied for by a female who has migrated, post marriage, to the State of Rajasthan. We make it clear once again. Issue of public employment and benefit of reservation has been decided by the Supreme Court and thus our present order would not be misconstrued as enabling anybody to the benefit of reservation. The present order concerns only to the issuance of a certificate applied for."

7. This Court reiterated the above referred position of law in Jaspal Kaur (supra) and Santosh (supra).

8. So it is clear that the petitioner is not entitled for reservation in public employment in the State of Rajasthan being the resident of State of Haryana, however, she can get the other benefits as being OBC on the strength of the certificate if the scheme envisages domicile or residence as entitlement.

9. In view of the above discussion, this writ petition is allowed. The respondent No. 2-Sub Divisional Magi