Jyotsna Rewal Dua, J.

Whether approved for reporting?¹Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

Notice. Ms. Seema Sharma, learned Deputy Advocate General and Mr. Surender Sharma, learned counsel, accept notice on behalf of respondents No.1, 2 & 4 and 3, respectively.

2. Petitioner presented her nomination for election to the office of Block Development Council for Ward No.7 (reserved for Scheduled Caste category), Khari Ogli Gram Panchayat, Kala Amb, Tehsil Nahan, District Sirmour, in terms of the election programme notified on 29.04.2026 by respondent No.3 for the conduct of general elections to the Panchayati Raj Institutions in the respondent-State. Petitioner’s nomination was rejected by respondent No.2 vide Annexure P-5 dated 13.05.2026, primarily on the ground that the petitioner is a permanent resident of the State of Punjab and has been residing at Nahan, District Sirmour, H.P., after her marriage; As per the clarification issued by the Department of Panchayati Raj on 08.05.2026, the petitioner was not held eligible for Scheduled Caste reservation in the State of Himachal Pradesh, being a person who migrated from Uttarakhand after marriage.

3. Learned Senior Advocate for the petitioner submitted that, by birth, the petitioner is a resident of Village Mohamadpur, Post Office Barthal, Tehsil Chhachhrauli, District Yamunanagar, Haryana; Petitioner belongs to the Balmiki caste by birth, which is recognized as Scheduled Caste in the State of Haryana; Petitioner solemnized marriage with one Sh. Raj Kumar & thereafter migrated to the State of Himachal Pradesh; Petitioner’s husband also belongs to the Balmiki caste, which is recognized as Scheduled Caste in the State of Himachal Pradesh; Petitioner has been issued a bona fide Himachali Certificate as also a Scheduled Caste Certificate in the respondent State of Himachal Pradesh. Learned Senior Advocate further submitted that the petitioner, having migrated to the State of Himachal Pradesh after solemnizing marriage with a person belonging to the Balmiki caste, i.e. the very caste to which the petitioner belongs to by birth, and the said caste having been recognized as Scheduled Caste in the State of Haryana and in the State of Himachal Pradesh, rejection of petitioner’s nomination by respondent No.2 was not in order; Respondent No.2 while rejecting petitioner’s nomination has in-turn relied upon a clarification dated 08.05.2026 issued by the Department of Panchayati Raj. The said clarification reads as under: -

“I am directed to refer to your communication dated 23.04.2026, regarding issuance of Scheduled Caste certificate and eligibility for availing Scheduled Caste reservation in connection with PRI Elections, 2026. The matter was examined in consultation with the Law Department. The Law Department opined as under:

In this context, it is stated that Sections 8(2) and 125 of the Himachal Pradesh Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 provide for reservation of seats and offices in Panchayats for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes in proportion to their population in the State. Further, as per Section 2(38) of the Act, the expression "Scheduled Cuxtes" shall have the same meaning as assigned to it under clause (24) of Article 366 of the Constitution of India. The Scheduled Castes are notified State-wise under the Constitution (Scheduled Castes) Order, 1950, as amended from time to time.

It is a settled legal position that the status of Scheduled Caste is Stute-specific and does not automatically extend beyond the State for which it is notified. A person belonging to a Scheduled Caste in one State cannot claim the benefit of reservation in another State upon migration, including migration on account of marriage. In this regard, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Marri Chandra Shekhar Rao vs. Dean, Seth G.S. Medical College (1990) 3 SCC 130, Action Committee vs. Union of India (1994) 5 SCC 244, and Bir Singh vs. Delhi Jal Board (2018) 10 SCC 312 has categorically he