Upon marriage into a scheduled caste or tribe, a woman belonging to a forward caste is not entitled to reservation benefits under the Constitutional and statutory provisions.

Deepak Gupta, J.—The short question which arises for determination in this case is "whether a non-tribal woman, who marries a person belonging ft to a scheduled tribe is entitled to the benefits of reservation available to the members of scheduled tribes on account of her marriage".

2. The facts in brief are that the petitioner who by birth does not belong to the scheduled tribes married one Sh. Arbind who is a member of a scheduled tribe. She contested the election for the post of Pardhan, Gram Panchayat Barang, Tehsil Kalpa, District Kinnaur, H.P. This post was reserved for women belonging to the scheduled tribes only. The only other opponent in the election was respondent No.

4. The petitioner won the election and thereafter respondent No. 4 filed an election petition under Section 163 of the H.P. Panchayati Raj Act. The main ground of challenge was that the petitioner did not belong to the scheduled tribes and therefore, was not eligible to contest the election.

3. The case of the petitioner before the authorised authority was that she had been issued a certificate by the Deputy Commissioner, Kinnaur, to the effect that she belongs to the scheduled tribes. According to her, she had married her husband who belongs to the scheduled tribe and therefore she acquired the same status as her husband. It was also pleaded that after her marriage, she performed and followed all rites and customs prevalent in the area and has been accepted in the tribe of her husband. The Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Kalpa, who is the authorised authority under the H.P. Panchayati Raj Act, came to the conclusion that the petitioner did not acquire the status of a scheduled tribe on her marriage with her husband and was not entitled to contest the election. The appeal filed by the appellant before the Deputy Commissioner has also been rejected. Hence, the present petition.

4. We have heard Ms. Pratima Malhotra, learned Counsel for the petitioner, Mr. M.S. Chandel, learned Advocate General, for respondents 1 to 3 and Sh. K.D. Sood, learned Counsel for respondent No. 4.

5. The main contention of Ms. Pratima Malhotra, is that the petitioner after her marriage to a person belonging to a scheduled tribe has been accepted in his family and has also been accepted in the Biradri of the husband. According to her, any Hindu lady after marriage will acquire the same status as her husband. She has placed reliance on the judgment of the apex Court in V.V. Giri v. D. Suri Dora and others, AIR 1959 SC 1318. In our view the said judgement is not at all applicable in the present case. The situation before the ,Apex Court was converse. There it was alleged that respondent who had fought the election as a member of a scheduled tribe was in fact a Kshtriya. The apex Court on the basis of the evidence in the case came to the conclusion that the respondent was always described as belonging to a scheduled tribe and that the documents from 1885 to 1928 showed him to be member of a scheduled tribe. In the documentary evidence relating to the period after the year 1928 the respondent had described himself and his family members as Kshatriya. Evidence was also led to the effect that the respondent and his family were celebrating marriages and other festivals as per Hindu rites. It is in this context that the Apex Court held that the caste status of a person would necessarily have to be determined in the light of the recognition received by him from the members of the caste into which he seeks an entry. This however, does not mean that if the members of the caste accept such a person, then the person so accepted is au tomatically entitled to the benefits of reservation under Articles 15(4) and 16(4) of the Constitution of India or any other reservation provided by law.

6. The question raised before us has been the subject-matter of a number of decisions. It is not necessary to refer to all the decisions. The Apex Court in Valsamma Paul v. Cochin University and others, (1996) 3