A person belonging to a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe in one State is not entitled to claim the benefit of reservation in another State to which they migrate, as reservation status is constitutionally confined to the geographical territories of the State of origin.

ORDER

This petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, has been filed seeking following relief(s):

(i) Order dated 4.1.2018 (Annexure P/1) passed by the Additional Commissioner Chambal Division, Morena in Case No. 0377/2016-17/Appeal be quashed/set aside.

(ii) Any other relief which this Hon’ble Court thinks appropriate in the facts and circumstances of the case may be granted in favour of the petitioner.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is a permanent resident of Ward No. 8, Baroda, Tahsil Baroda, District Sheopur (M.P.), and had applied for appointment to the post of Anganwadi Worker, being a member of the Scheduled Castes. It is contended that respondent No. 4, the Project Officer, illegally appointed one Famida Bano as Anganwadi Worker. The said order was challenged by the petitioner before the Additional Collector, Sheopur. Thereafter, on 16.11.2016, respondent No. 5, Smt. Kirti Sharma, was appointed as Anganwadi Worker by the Project Officer, allegedly ignoring the eligibility of the petitioner. The petitioner challenged the aforesaid order by filing an appeal before the Additional Collector, District Sheopur, which was allowed on 26.07.2017, with a direction to issue an order of appointment in favour of the petitioner. In pursuance of the order dated 26.07.2017, the petitioner was appointed as Anganwadi Worker on 29.08.2017.

3. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order dated 26.07.2017, respondent No. 5, Kirti Sharma, preferred an appeal before the Additional Commissioner, Chambal Division, Morena. Vide order dated 04.01.2018, the Additional Commissioner set aside the order of the Additional Collector, Sheopur, and directed that a fresh appointment to the post of Anganwadi Worker be made after affording an opportunity of hearing to the concerned parties. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the Collector has recorded a categorical finding that the Scheduled Caste certificate issued in favour of the petitioner is valid throughout India, and accordingly, the petitioner is entitled to 61.5 marks, whereas the other candidates are less meritorious.

4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents opposed the submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioner and submitted that the caste certificate dated 05.09.2016 has been issued by the Government of Rajasthan through the SDO, Sub-Division Kota, State of Rajasthan. It is further submitted that the petitioner cannot claim the benefit of reservation in the State of Madhya Pradesh, as the petitioner’s home State is Rajasthan, and therefore, she is not entitled to the benefit of a Scheduled Caste certificate in the State of Madhya Pradesh.

5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

6. Admittedly, the caste certificate of the petitioner has been issued by the SDO, Kota, State of Rajasthan. It is a settled position of law that the benefit of reservation can be extended only in the home State. As the petitioner’s home State is Rajasthan, the benefit of the Scheduled Castes category cannot be extended to her in the State of Madhya Pradesh.

7. The controversy involved in the present case regarding the Caste Certificate has already been decided by this Court vide order dated 14.10.2025 passed in W.P.No. 7745/2014 [Smt. Saini vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors.], relevant part of which reads as under:-

"5.The person belonging to the S.C. or S.T. or O.B.C. in one State cannot be deemed to be S.C. or S.T. or OBC in relation to any other State to which he migrates and the expressions "in relation to that State or Union Territory" and "for the purpose of this Constitution" used in Article 341 and 342 wo