The legal principle established is that a person married to a Scheduled Caste individual may not get the benefits of certain constitutional provisions but would not be precluded from contesting elections from a reserved constituency.

JUDGMENT

Rakesh Kumar Jain, J. - The petitioner has challenged the communication dated 4.9.2015, 7.9.2015 and the order of cancellation dated 22.12.2015 by which the certificate of Scheduled Caste issued to her has been cancelled.

2. In brief, the petitioner hails from Uttarakhand. She belongs to a caste called Kanjarh. The said caste find mentioned at Serial No. 42 in the Notification issued by the State of Uttarakhand/Uttaranchal and is, thus, a Scheduled Caste. The petitioner has appended the certificate of Scheduled Caste issued to her father (belonging to the caste Kanjarh)(Annexure P-2). The petitioner is married to one Vijay Kumar resident of Hoshiarpur, who belongs to the caste of Sirki Bandh which is a Scheduled Caste in Punjab as mentioned in the Schedule at Serial No. 37. The petitioner contested the election of Councillor of Municipal Corporation, Hoshiarpur from Ward No.17 on reserved seat on the strength of her certificate of Scheduled Caste which she obtained after marriage, belonging to the caste of Sirki Bandh. She was successful in the election in which the result was declared on 26.2.2015. The loosing candidate/respondent No.7, made a complaint on 20.5.2015 to the District Commissioner, Hoshiarpur, against the petitioner that the Scheduled Caste certificate appended by her of her caste is wrong. The caste Kanjarh is not a caste mentioned in the Schedule in the State of Punjab and by getting married to a person belonging to Sirki Bandh caste, which is of course a caste mentioned in the Schedule, she cannot get the certificate of Sirki Bandh caste. The Deputy Commissioner, Hoshiarpur got the matter enquired through the Tehsildar, Hoshiarpur, who vide his impugned report dated 4.9.2015 observed that the Caste Sirkibandh is not equal to the Caste Kanjarh in Uttrakhand, therefore, the petitioner has wrongly been issued the Scheduled Caste certificate (Annexure P-3) on the strength of which she has contested election to the post of Councilor of Municipal Corporation, Hoshiarpur. The said report was followed by another report by the Tehsildar dated 11.9.2015 and the impugned order dated 22.12.2015 and the certificate issued to the petitioner (Annexure P-3) was cancelled by the Tehsildar. As a result thereof, if the certificate of the petitioner is cancelled, the petitioner would be unseated from the post of Councilor to which she has been elected being Schedule Caste candidate. Therefore, she has challenged the cancellation of her Caste Certificate by way of this writ petition in which, at the time of issuance of notice, operation of the impugned order was stayed.

3. The respondents have filed their reply in which they have taken the stand that the petitioner belonged to the Caste Kanjarh which is not listed in the Schedule. The certificate was issued by the competent authority but it is not declared that the said caste kanjarh is similar to caste Sirkibandh which is a Scheduled Caste in the State of Punjab. The stand of the respondents is that the petitioner would not belong to Sirkibandh Caste after her marriage and shall have to be treated as a General Category candidate because of the reason that her Caste Kanjarh, which is a Scheduled Caste in Uttrakhand, is not a Scheduled Caste in the State of Punjab, and being a General Category candidate, marriage to a Scheduled Caste person, will not give her the status of the Schedule Caste.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is a Scheduled Caste by birth in the State of Uttarakhand. Her hushand is also a Scheduled Caste by birth in the State of Punjab. It is not a case where petitioner married to a Scheduled Caste person and then seeking to obtain certificate for the purpose of contesting election. She has referred to a letter issued by the Ministry of Home Affairs dated 18.11.1982 which has been addressed to The Chief Secretaries to all State Governments/Union Territories Administrations, in which it is observed that "the certificate