Madhya Pradesh High Court
Smt.Sita Saini vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 14 October, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:26042
1 WP. No. 7745 of 2014
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT G WA L I O R
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANAND SINGH BAHRAWAT
ON THE 14th OF OCTOBER, 2025
WRIT PETITION No. 7745 of 2014
SMT. SITA SAINI
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Narrottam Sharma and Shri Yash Tomar - Advocates for petitioner.
Shri M.S. Jadon - Government Advocate for respondent/State.
ORDER
This petition, under Article 226 of Constitution of India, has been preferred
seeking the following relief (s):
"i) That, the impugned order annexure P/1 may kindly be set aside
and the petitioner be held entitled to benefit of selection on the post
of Constable under SC category,
ii) the order annexure P-7 be also quashed and the respondent No.3
be directed to issue a SC category Caste certificate from Madhya
Pradesh,
iii) any other relief deemed fit in the facts and circumstances of the
case doing justice in the matter be also awarded,
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:26042
iv) Costs may also be awarded."
2. Learned counsel for petitioner submit that petitioner is the domicile of
State of U.P. and after her marriage to a resident of District Morena, she is now
the resident of State of Madhya Pradesh. Learned counsel for petitioner further
submit that as per Circular dated 28.10.2010 issued by the State of Madhya
Pradesh, being the wife of a domiciled resident of Madhya Pradesh, she does not
require a separate domicile certificate from Madhya Pradesh. Learned counsel
further submits that petitioner holds an SC certificate of Jatav caste from Uttar
Pradesh. The said caste is a recognised Scheduled Caste in Madhya Pradesh as
well as Uttar Pradesh. Respondents issued an advertisement and petitioner
submitted her candidature under SC category. The result was announced and
petitioner was selected under SC category. Thereafter, candidature of petitioner
has been converted as one under General Category for the reason that petitioner
is an SC category candidate originally domiciled from outside State of Madhya
Pradesh and being irked by the said action, petitioner has knocked the doors of
this Court by filing instant petition for the reliefs mentioned above. It is
submitted that as per Circular dated 11.07.2005, petitioner's right cannot be
curtailed. Jatav caste is notified as SC in both the States i.e. Uttar Pradesh and
Madhya Pradesh. It is further submitted that after marriage petitioner became the
domicile of State of M.P. by virtue of her marriage and for this reason also she is
entitled to the benefit of reservation in State of Madhya Pradesh. It is lastly
submitted by learned counsel for petitioner that even a domicile certificate has
been issued by the State of Madhya Pradesh.
3. Per contra, it is submitted by learned Government Advocate that the
candidate of reserved category of other State is not eligible to have reservation in
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:26042
the State of Madhya Pradesh and therefore, the Competent Authority of State of
Madhya Pradesh has rightly refused to issue caste certificate. It is also submitted
that since petitioner was born in village Midkoli, Tahsil Wah, District Agra in the
State of U.P. as such caste certificate was required to be issued by the State to
which petitioner originally belonged and which was already issued to her by the
State of U.P. On these submissions, learned counsel for the State opposed the
prayer made by learned counsel for petitioner and supported the impugned order.
4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
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 would mean
that benefit of reservation provided by the Constitution stands confined to
geographical territories of State/UT in respect of which lists of SCs/STs have
been notified by Presidential Orders issued from time to time and persons
notified as SC or ST or OBC in State A cannot claim the same status in another
State on the basis that he is declared as a SC or ST or OBC in State A.
6. The person who is recognized as a member of SC or ST or OBC in the
original state will be entitled to all the benefits of reservation under the
Constitution in that State only and not in other States/Union Territories and
would not be entitled to the benefits of reservation in the migrated State and
Union Territories. [Bir Singh Vs. Delhi Jal Board and others, reported in
(2018) 10 SCC 312].
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:26042
7. While construing the provisions of Article 341 and 342 of the Constitution,
it was observed that where the question of fate of those scheduled caste and
scheduled tribe students who get the protection of being classed as scheduled
caste or scheduled tribes in 'the States of origin when, because of transfer or
movement of their father or guardian's business or service, they move to other
States as a matter of voluntary (sic involuntary) transfer, will they be entitled to
some sort of protective treatment so that they may continue or pursue their
education, has opined that where the migration from one State to other is
involuntary, by force of circumstances either of employment or of profession, in
such cases if students or persons apply in the migrated State where without
affecting prejudicially the rights of the scheduled castes or scheduled tribes in
those States or areas, any facility or protection for continuance of study or
admission can be given to one who has so migrated then some consideration is
desirable to be made on that ground, but for that the issue was left for the
legislature to promulgate appropriate legislation bearing this aspect and in that
case also it was held that the petitioner therein was not entitled to get admission
in the Medical College on the basis that he belongs to the Scheduled Tribe in his
original State. [Marri Chandra Shekhar Rao Vs. Dean, Seth G.S. Medical
College and others, reported in (1990) 3 SCC 130]
8. In Marri Chandra Shekhar Rao (supra) and Action Committee v/s
Union of India & Another reported in (1994) 5 SCC 244, Hon'ble Apex Court
has held as under:-
In Marri Chandra (supra)
"13. It is trite knowledge that the statutory and constitutional
provisions should be interpreted broadly and harmoniously. It is trite
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:26042
saying that where there is conflict between two provisions, these
should be so interpreted as to give effect to both. Nothing is surplus
in a Constitution and no part should be made nugatory. This is well
settled. See the observations of this Court in Venkataramana Devaru
v. State of Mysore AIR 1958 SC 255 , where Venkatarama Aiyer, J.
reiterated that the rule of construction is well settled and where there
are in an enactment two provisions which cannot be reconciled with
each other, these should be so interpreted that, if possible, effect
could be given to both. It, however, appears to us that the expression
'for the purposes of this Constitution' in Article 341 as well as in
Article 342 do imply that the Scheduled Caste and the Scheduled
Tribes so specified would be entitled to enjoy all the constitutional
rights that are enjoyable by all the citizens as such. Constitutional
right, e.g., it has been argued that right to migration or right to move
from one part to another is a right given to all -- to Scheduled
Castes or Tribes and to nonscheduled castes or tribes. But when a
Scheduled Caste or Tribe migrates, there is no inhibition in
migrating but when he migrates, he does not and cannot carry any
special rights or privileges attributed to him or granted to him in the
original State specified for that State or area or part thereof. If that
right is not given in the migrated State it does not interfere with his
constitutional right of equality or of migration or of carrying on his
trade, business or profession. Neither Article 14, 16, 19 nor Article
21 is denuded by migration but he must enjoy those rights in
accordance with the law if they are otherwise followed in the place
where he migrates. There should be harmonious construction,
harmonious in the sense that both parts or all parts of a constitutional
provision should be so read that one part does not become nugatory
to the other or denuded to the other but all parts must be read in the
context in which these are used. It was contended that the only way
in which the fundamental rights of the petitioner under Articles 14,
19(1)(d), 19(1)(e) and 19(1)(f) could be given effect to is by
construing Article 342 in a manner by which a member of a
Scheduled Tribe gets the benefit of that status for the purposes of the
Constitution throughout the territory of India. It was submitted that
the words "for the purposes of this Constitution" must be given full
effect. There is no dispute about that. The words "for the purposes of
this Constitution" must mean that a Scheduled Caste so designated
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:26042
must have right under Articles 14, 19(1)(d), 19(1)(e) and 19(1)(f)
inasmuch as these are applicable to him in his area where he
migrates or where he goes. The expression "in relation to that State"
would become nugatory if in all States the special privileges or the
rights granted to Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes are carried
forward. It will also be inconsistent with the whole purpose of the
scheme of reservation. In Andhra Pradesh, a Scheduled Caste or a
Scheduled Tribe may require protection because a boy or a child
who grows in that area is inhibited or is at disadvantage. In
Maharashtra that caste or that tribe may not be so inhibited but other
castes or tribes might be. If a boy or a child goes to that atmosphere
of Maharashtra as a young boy or a child and goes in a completely
different atmosphere or Maharashtra where this inhibition or this
disadvantage is not there, then he cannot be said to have that
reservation which will denude the children or the people of
Maharashtra belonging to any segment of that State who may still
require that protection. After all, it has to be borne in mind that the
protection is necessary for the disadvantaged castes or tribes of
Maharashtra as well as disadvantaged castes or tribes of Andhra
Pradesh. Thus, balancing must be done as between those who need
protection and those who need no protection, i.e., who belong to
advantaged castes or tribes and who do not. Treating the
determination under Articles 341 and 342 of the Constitution to be
valid for all over the country would be in negation to the very
purpose and scheme and language of Article 341 read with Article
15(4) of the Constitution.
In Action Committee (supra)
"16. We may add that considerations for specifying a particular
caste or tribe or class for inclusion in the list of Scheduled
Castes/Schedule Tribes or backward classes in a given State would
depend on the nature and extent of disadvantages and social
hardships suffered by that caste, tribe or class in that State which
may be totally non est in another State to which persons belonging
thereto may migrate. Coincidentally it may be that a caste or tribe
bearing the same nomenclature is specified in two States but the
considerations on the basis of which they have been specified may
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:26042
be totally different. So also the degree of disadvantages of various
elements which constitute the input for specification may also be
totally different. Therefore, merely because a given caste is specified
in State A as a Scheduled Caste does not necessarily mean that if
there be another caste bearing the same nomenclature in another
State the person belonging to the former would be entitled to the
rights, privileges and benefits admissible to a member of the
Scheduled Caste of the latter State "for the purposes of this
Constitution". This is an aspect which has to be kept in mind and
which was very much in the minds of the Constitution-makers as is
evident from the choice of language of Articles 341 and 342 of the
Constitution. That is why in answer to a question by Mr Jaipal
Singh, Dr Ambedkar answered as under:
"He asked me another question and it was this. Supposing
a member of a Scheduled Tribe living in a tribal area
migrates to another part of the territory of India, which is
outside both the scheduled area and the tribal area, will he
be able to claim from the local Government, within whose
jurisdiction he may be residing the same privileges which
he would be entitled to when he is residing within the
scheduled area or within the tribal area? It is a difficult
question for me to answer. If that matter is agitated in
quarters where a decision on a matter like this would lie,
we would certainly be able to give some answer to the
question in the form of some clause in this Constitution.
But so far as the present Constitution stands, a member of
a Scheduled Tribe going outside the scheduled area or
tribal area would certainly not be entitled to carry with him
the privileges that he is entitled to when he is residing in a
scheduled area or a tribal area. So far as I can see, it will be
practicably impossible to enforce the provisions that apply
to tribal areas or scheduled areas, in areas other than those
which are covered by them...."
Relying on this statement the Constitution Bench ruled that the
petitioner was not entitled to admission to the medical college on the
basis that he belonged to a Scheduled Tribe in the State of his
origin."
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:26042
Aforesaid view has been followed by Apex Court in Ranjana Kumari vs.
State of Uttarakhand & Ors. (2019) 15 SCC 664 and Bhadar Ram (Dead)
through Legal Representatives vs. Jassa Ram & Ors. (2022) 4 SCC 259.
9. From the aforesaid, it is lucid that a person, who migrates from one State
to the other does not carry his caste status to the migrating State, even if the same
caste is recognized as SC in both States. The reason is not far to see. There may
be caste or sub caste of same name, which are recognized in more than one States
in India. However, merely because the caste known by a particular name is
recognized in more than one States cannot extend the benefit of reservation in
both the States. The recognition of a caste in a particular State as SC is directly
relatable to social, economic and educational backwardness faced by that caste in
the home State. This geographical, social and educational backwardness existing
in the home State cannot necessarily be the same in the other State. Thus, it is not
the similarity of name of a particular caste in two or more States, which is the
deciding factor but it is the social, economic and educational backwardness of
that particular caste in a particular State, which recognizes that caste to be a
scheduled caste. The social, economic and educational backwardness are factors,
which are never identical or even similar in two different States.
10. The benefit of caste would be available to them who were migrants of
Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe in other State, who had migrated before
1950 to the other State and not otherwise and in that regard the petitioner therein
who migrated in the year 1998 from the State of Rajasthan to State of M.P. after
her marriage was held not to be entitled to contest the election on the basis of
caste certificate issued by the competent authority of State of Rajasthan. [Smt.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:26042
Preeti Gehlod Vs. M.P. State Election Commission and others, (passed in
Civil Revision No.574 of 2019, decided on 26.3.2025)].
11. Castes or groups are specified in relation to a given State or Union
Territory, which obviously means that such caste would include caste belonging
to an OBC group in relation to that State or Union Territory for which it is
specified and the matters that are to be taken into consideration for specifying a
particular caste in a particular group belonging to OBCs would depend on the
nature and extent of disadvantages and social hardships suffered by that caste or
group in that State and they may not be so in another State to which a person
belongs thereto goes by migration and it was also argued that it may also be that
a caste belonging to the same nomenclature is specified in two States but the
considerations on the basis of which they have been specified may be totally
different. So also the degree of disadvantages of various elements which
constitute the data for specification may also be entirely different. Thus, merely
because a given caste is specified in one State as belonging to OBCs does not
necessarily mean that if there be another group belonging to the same
nomenclature in other State, a person belonging to that group is entitled to the
rights, privileges and benefits admissible to the persons of that caste. [M.C.D.
Vs. Veena and others, reported in (2001) 6 SCC 571]
12. The Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Smt. Preeti Gehlod
(supra) while referring to the decision of the Apex Court in the matter of Action
Committee (supra) wherein it was held that the benefit of caste would be
available to them who were migrated before 1950 to the other State has held that
since the petitioner therein migrated in the year 1998 from the State of Rajasthan
to Madhya Pradesh after her marriage, therefore, she is not entitled to contest the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:26042
election on the basis of a caste certificate issued by the Competent Authority of
the State of Rajasthan.
13. In the case herein the petitioner is possessing the caste certificate issued by
the State of U.P. and no caste certificate from the State of M.P. has been issued in
her favour. Thus, when that is the case, the benefit of caste certificate issued by
the State of U.P. in the light of the aforesaid judgments cannot be accepted in the
State of M.P. and on its basis the benefit of reservation cannot be extended to the
petitioner. The Apex Court in the case of M.C.D. vs. Veena and others (supra)
in para 6 has held as under:
"Castes or groups are specified in relation to a given State or Union
Territory, which obviously means that such caste would include caste
belonging to an OBC group in relation to that State or Union
Territory for which it is specified. The matters that are to be taken
into consideration for specifying a particular caste in a particular
group belonging to OBCs would depend on the nature and extent of
disadvantages and social hardships suffered by that caste or group in
that State. However, it may not be so in another State to which a
person belongs thereto goes by migration. It may also be that a caste
belonging to the same nomenclature is specified in two States but the
considerations on the basis of which they been specified may be
totally different. So the degree of disadvantages of various elements
which constitute the data for specification may also be entirely
different. Thus, merely because a given caste is specified in one State
as belonging to OBCs does not necessarily mean that if there be
another group belonging to the same nomenclature in other State and
a person belonging to that group is entitled to the rights, privileges
and benefits admissible to the members of that caste. These aspects
have to be borne in mind in interpreting the provisions of the
Constitution with reference to application of reservation to OBCs."
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:26042
14. In light of the aforesaid discussion, this Court finds that petitioner who
prior to migration was domicile of State of U.P. and was possessing a caste
certificate issued by the State of U.P. therefore, after her migration (due to
marriage) to the State of M.P. cannot avail the benefit of reservation on the basis
of caste certificate issued by the State of U.P.
15. Accordingly, the petition sans merits and is hereby dismissed.
(Anand Singh Bahrawat)
Judge
pd
