Migrants are not entitled to reservation benefits unless they obtain the requisite certificate from the Competent Authority of the state to which they have migrated.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH

115

CWP-29689 of 2022 (O&M)

and other connected cases

Date of decision: 09.01.2023

Kulwinder Kaur

..Petitioner

Versus

State of Punjab and another

..Respondents

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KSHETARPAL

Present:

Mr. Deepak Aggarwal, Advocate

for the petitioner.

Sh. Charanpreet Singh, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab

ANIL KSHETARPAL, J(Oral)

1.

This order shall dispose of various Civil Writ Petitions bearing

No.29689, 29691, 29737, 29759, 29802, 29804, 29830, 29845, 29995,

30019, 30032, 30043 of 2022.

2.

In all these cases, the petitioners pray for direction to the

respondents to consider the petitioners' candidature for appointment to the

post of Master Cadre in Scheduled Caste Category. All these petitioners

have migrated from other States. The petitioners claim that it is involuntary

migration which has occurred on account of their marriage. The petitioners'

claim has been rejected on the ground that the certificate issued by the

respective States in which they were born is not sufficient to consider their

case for reservation. The petitioners, while submitting their applications, did

not attach the certificate issued by the Competent Authority, Punjab.

The learned counsel representing the petitioners relies upon the

order passed in LPA No.671 of 2018, titled as State of Punjab and others

vs. Bhanu Bala, decided on 02.11.2018.

NARESH KUMAR

2023.01.25 13:05

I attest to the accuracy and

authenticity of this order/judgment

CWP-29689 of 2022 (O&M)

and other connected cases

-2-

The aforesaid issue has been considered by three different 5

Judges Benche of the Supreme Court in Chandra Shekhar Rai vs. Dean,

Seth G.S.Medical College and others, (1990) 3 SCC 130, Action

Committee of Issue of Caste Certificate to Scheduled Castes & Scheduled

Tribes in the State of Maharashtra and another vs. Union of India and

Another, (1994) 5 SCC 244 and Bir Singh vs. Delhi Jal Board and others,

(2018) 8 JT SC 463 and another 3 Judge Bench in Ranjana Kumari vs.

State of Uttrakhand and others, (2019) 15 SCC 664. Moreover, recently,

the Supreme Court in Bhadar Ram(dead) through LRs vs. Jassa Ram and

others, (2022) 4 SCC 257, has considered the issue of migration of the

female candidates, who are identically situated. Again, in Haryana State

Public Service Commission vs. Shweta Kashyap and others, LPA No.377

of 2018 the issue of entitlement of a female candidate who migrates to

another State due to her marriage has been considered and rejected.

In view of the aforesaid, no ground to issue the writ as prayed

for, is made out.

Hence, dismissed.

All the pending miscellaneous applications, if any, are also

disposed of.

January 09, 2023

(ANIL KSHETARPAL)

nt

JUDGE

Whether speaking/reasoned

:

Yes/No

Whether reportable

:

Yes/No

NARESH KUMAR

2023.01.25 13:05

I attest to the accuracy and

authenticity of this order/judgment