Back
2025 Supreme(HP) 877
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
Ajay Mohan Goel, J.
Rahul Thakur - Petitioner
Versus
National Other Backward Classes Commission and another - Respondents
CWP No. 12344 of 2024
Decided On : 26-03-2025
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner:Mr. Arun Sehgal, Advocate.
For the Respondent: Mr. Balram Sharma, DSGI, Mr. Rahul Thakur, Dy. AG
A person cannot claim OBC status in a state where they do not originate, even if their caste is recognized there, as per constitutional provisions.
Headnote:
(A) Constitution of India - Articles 341, 342, and 342-A - Writ petition for issuance of Other Backward Class (OBC) certificate - Petitioner, originally from Uttar Pradesh, claimed OBC status in Himachal Pradesh based on caste nomenclature - Court held that OBC status is state-specific and cannot be claimed based on migration or similarity of caste names - Petitioner does not qualify for OBC certificate in Himachal Pradesh. (Paras 5, 12, 13)
(B) Legal Principle - The status of reservation as Scheduled Caste, Scheduled Tribe, or OBC is conferred based on constitutional provisions and cannot be altered by certificates from other states or based on migration. (Paras 12, 13)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner, a permanent resident of Himachal Pradesh, applied for an OBC certificate based on his caste 'Kahar', which is recognized in Himachal Pradesh. His application was rejected on the grounds that he originally belongs to Uttar Pradesh.
Findings of Court:
The court found no merit in the petition, affirming that the petitioner cannot claim OBC status in Himachal Pradesh as he does not hail from the state.
Issues: The main issues were whether the petitioner qualifies for an OBC certificate in Himachal Pradesh and the implications of his original state of residence on his eligibility.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that a person belonging to an SC, ST, or OBC in one state cannot claim the same status in another state, emphasizing that constitutional provisions govern such classifications.
Result: Writ petition dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
Ajay Mohan Goel, J.
By way of this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs:-
“(i) That writ in the nature of certiorari may kindly be DAY issued, quashing and setting aside the impugned rejection letter dated 22.11.2023 (Annexure P-6).
(ii) That writ in the nature of mandamus may kindly be issued, directing the Respondent No. 2 to issue the Other Backward Class certificate to the petitioner within a time bound period pursuant to his Online Application 01.04.2023.
(iii) That strict action may kindly be ordered to be takenagainst the Respondent No 2 for causing unnecessary delay in issuing the Other Backward Class certificate to the petitioner and dereliction of his official duty.
by way of issuance of writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ order or direction, respondents may kindly be directed to issue consolidated mark list to the petitioner along with degree in MA Physical Education, in the interest of justice, equity and fair play.”
2. Case of the petitioner is that he is a permanent resident of Village Ser, PO, Tehsil and District Solan. He belongs to “Kahar” caste, which is recognized as Other Backward Class (OBC) in the State of Himachal Pradesh. The petitioner is a bonafide Himachali. He applied for issuance of an OBC certificate, which was issued to him and the same was valid for one year. After the expiry of the same, the petitioner again applied for the grant of an OBC certificate, however, as nothing was done by the Authorities, he approached this Court by way of CWP No. 7104 of 2023. Said writ petition was disposed of by this Court on 19.10.2023, by issuance of a direction to respondent No. 2 to take action on the application filed by the petitioner for issuance of an OBC certificate. The application of the petitioner stands rejected in terms of Annexure P-6, dated 22.11.2023 and feeling aggrieved, the petitioner has filed this writ petition.
3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has argued that the rejection of the application of the petitioner is per se bad because as the petitioner is a bonafide Himachali and for all intents and purposes, he has been staying in the State of Himachal Pradesh for a pretty long time, he cannot be denied an OBC certificate.
4. Learned Deputy Advocate General has drawn the attention of the Court to the order passed by Tehsildar and has submitted that the petitioner does not belong to OBC category of Himachal Pradesh and he in fact originally belongs to State of Uttar Pradesh and simply because his caste in Uttar Pradesh is of the same nomenclature, which finds mention as one of the OBC categories in the State of Himachal Pradesh, on this count alone, the petitioner cannot claim OBC certificate.
5. Having heard learned Counsel for the parties and having carefully gone through the averments made in the writ petition as well as the impugned order, this Court is of the considered view that there is no merit in this writ petition. It is an admitted fact and was not disputed even by learned Counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is originally not a Himachali and he belongs to the State of Uttar Pradesh. That being the case, in terms of the provisions of Article 341, 342 and 342-A of the Constitution of India, one can get the benefit of being Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe or a person belonging to socially, educationally backward class in the State from which he hails. In this case, as the petitioner does not hail from the State of Himachal Pradesh, he has no right to claim either OBC category in the State of Himachal Pradesh or the OBC certificate from the State of Himachal Pradesh. This issue in fact has already been decided by this Court in CWP No. 11901 of 2024, titled as Smt. Jaswinder Kaur vs. The State of Himachal Pradesh and others, decided on 25.11.2024, by placing reliance on a five Judge Bench judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Action Committee on issue of Caste Certificate to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes in the
