[Cites 17, Cited by 0]
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Smt. Prabha Verma vs The State Of M.P. on 22 January, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:2807
1 WP-1728-2014
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANAND SINGH BAHRAWAT
ON THE 22nd OF JANUARY, 2026
WRIT PETITION No. 1728 of 2014
SMT. PRABHA VERMA
Versus
THE STATE OF M.P. AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Dharmendra Singh Raghuwanshi - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri K.K. Prajapati - Government Advocate for respondent No.1/State.
Shri Shashank Indapurkar - Advocate for respondent No.2.
Shri Prashant Sharma - Advocate for respondent/intervenor.
ORDER
This petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, has been
filed seeking the following reliefs:-
"1. That, the order dtd. 25.02.14 passed by respondent no.3 may
kindly be quashed and Respondents may kindly be directed to in
the case of the petitioner to permit the petitioner for appearing in
the interview schedule on dtd.15,16,17/04/2014 for the scientific
officer (Chemistry) selection examination 2013 and to issue the
appointment order on the basis of merit position in favour of
petitioner.
2. That, the respondent No.1 may kindly be further directed to give
sympathetic consideration of the representation of the petitioner
by permitting the petitioner to appear in the interview for the
aforesaid examination by revising the list of qualified candidates
(Ann.P/2).
(2-A) that, the order dated 26.2.2015 passed by the S.D.O.
Lashkar Gwalior may kindly be set aside and the respondent-state
may kindly be directed to issue the caste certificate to the
petitioner with the name of her father.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:2807
2 WP-1728-2014
3. Any other relief which this Hon'ble Court deems fit in the facts
and circumstances of the case same may kindly be granted to the
petitioner."
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondents
rejected the candidature of the petitioner for interview for the post of
Scientific Officer (Chemistry) in the Selection Examination, 2013, on the
ground that the petitioner did not possess a caste certificate issued in her
name reflecting her father's name. The home State of the petitioner is Uttar
Pradesh. The petitioner belongs to the Scheduled Caste category in the State
of Uttar Pradesh and is a member of the Scheduled Caste (Kori caste) in
Uttar Pradesh, which is also recognized as a Scheduled Caste in the State of
Madhya Pradesh. The Kori caste is notified as a Scheduled Caste in both the
States. Since the Kori caste is included in the list of Scheduled Castes in
Uttar Pradesh as well as in Madhya Pradesh, the petitioner is entitled to
obtain a Scheduled Caste certificate from the competent authorities of
Madhya Pradesh. Consequently, the petitioner is entitled to be considered for
selection to the aforesaid post.
3 . Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that a
candidate belonging to a reserved category of another State is not entitled to
claim reservation in the State of Madhya Pradesh, therefore, the competent
authority of the State of Madhya Pradesh has rightly refused to issue the
caste certificate. It is also submitted that since the petitioner was born in
District Jhansi (U.P.), the caste certificate was required to be issued by the
State to which the petitioner originally belonged, which had already been
issued to her by the State of Uttar Pradesh. On these submissions, learned
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:2807
3 WP-1728-2014
counsel for the respondents opposed the prayer made by learned counsel for
the petitioner and supported the impugned action.
4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
5. The General Administration Department, State of Madhya Pradesh
has issued circular dated F7-42/2012/Aa.Pra./One dated 13.01.2014 with
regard to issuance of Caste Certificate. The relevant portion of the said
circular reads as under:
वषय :- अनुसूिचत जाित, अनुसूिचत जनजाित, अ य पछडा वग तथा
वमु , धुम कड एवं अ धुम कड जाितयो के जाित माण प जार
करने के संबंध मे
संदभ :- 1. सा. . व. का प रप एफ 7-2/96/आ. . / एक दनांक
1.8.1996
2. सा. . व. का प रप एफ 7-2/96/आ. ./ एक दनांक 12.3.1997
3. सा. . व. का प रप एफ 7-13/04/आ. . / एक दनांक 11.7.2005
4. लोक सेवा बंधन वभाग क अिधसूचना मांक एफ 2-
13/2012/61/लोसे / पीएसजी-19 दनांक 10.4.2013
* * * *
4. पा ता क आव यक शत
4.1 भारत सरकार क अिधसूचना सं वधान (अनुसूिचत जाितयां) आदे श,
1950 दनांक 10 अग त 1950 एवं सं वधान (अनुसूिचत जनजाितयां)
आदे श 1950 दनांक 06 िसत बर 1950 ारा म य दे श रा य के िलए
धो षत अनुसूिचत जाित तथा अनुसूिचत जनजाित क सूची (समय-
समय पर कये गये संशोधन स हत) म आवेदक क जाित संबंिधत वग
मे अिधसूिचत हो।
4.2 आवेदक / उसका प रवार कं डका 4.1 मे उ ले खत जाितय क
अिधसूचना जार होने क ितिथ अथवा उसके पूव से म य दे श रा य मे
िनवास करता हो।
4.3 अ य पछडा वग के िलए आ दम जाित, ह रजन एवं पछडा वग
क याण वभाग क अिधसूचना मांक एफ 8-5-प चीस-4-84, दनांक
26 दस बर 1984 (समय समय पर कये गये संशोधन स हत) मे
आवेदक क जाित शािमल हो।
4.4 अ य पछडा वग के संदभ मे आवेदक का प रवार क मीलेयर क
ण
े ी मे नह आता हो।
4.5 वमु , धुम कड एवं अध धुम कड जाितय क शासन ारा जार
सूची मे आवेदक क जाित शािमल हो।
5. िनधा रत ा प मे आवेदन के साथ संल न कये जाने वाले आव यक
द तावेज
5.1 आवेदक को उपरो कं डका 3 मे उ ले खत िनधा रत ा प मे
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:2807
4 WP-1728-2014
आवेदन प के साथ आवेदक के पास उपल ध ऐसे द तावेज संल न
करना होगे जससे -
अनुसूिचत जाित / अनुसूिचत जनजाित के मामले म उनक जाित तथा
आवेदक / उसका प रवार क वष 1950 या उससे पूव म. . मे िनवास क
पु होती हो।
अथवा
अ य पछडा वग के मामले मे उसक जाित तथा वष 1984 क थित
मे या उसके पूव म. . मे िनवास क पु होती हो।
5.2 म य दे श मे िनवास एवं जाित क पु करने के िलये िन नां कत
द तावेज संल न कये जा सकते है :-
(i) जाित क पु हे तु -
प रवार के सद य (दादा / दाद / परदादा/ पता/माता/चाचा/भाई/बहन) के
नाम दज अचल संप का रकाड (भूिम / भूख ड / मकान क र ज
या अ य कोई राज व रकाड आ द) क छाया ित जसमे जाित का
उ लेख हो।
अथवा
प रवार के कसी सद य ( पता/चाचा/भाई/बहन या दादा) को वष 1996
के अनु वभागीय अिधकार (राज व) ारा जार जाित माण प ।
(ii) प रवार क वष 1950 म िनवास क पु हे तु द तावेज
(जो उपल ध हो)
िश ा/ शासक य सेवा / मतदाता प रचय प / प रवार के सद य (दादा /
दाद /परदादा/ पता/माता/चाचा / भाई / बहन) के नाम दज अचल स पित
का रकाड (भूिम / भूख ड / मकान क र ज या अ य कोई राज व
रकाड आ द) क छाया ित ।
(iii) वयं आवेदक के शै णक यो यता संबंधी माण प क छाया ित
।
(iv) जाित एवं िनवास क ितिथ के संबंध मे संल न घोषणा प ।
5.3 आवेदक जनके पास वष 1950 (अ य पछडा वग के िलये 1984) मे
म य दे श मे िनवास संबंधी द तावेज नह है :-
ऐसे आवेदको से जनके पास वष 1950 (अ य पछडा वग के िलये
1984) या उससे पहले से म य दे श का िनवासी संबंधी िल खत रकाड
नह है , तो उसे यह िल खत रकाड तुत करने हे तु ववश न कया
जाए। राज व अिधका रय को वयं मौके पर जाकर / कै प मे जांच कर
आवेदन प मे उ ले खत जानकार क पु करना चा हये।
इसके िलए आवेदक / संबंिधत सरपंच / पाषद / उस ाम मोह ले के
स ांत य य से पूछताछ कर उनके बयान दज कये जाना चा हये और
वयं क संतु के बाद थाई जाित माण प जार करने क अनुशंसा
करना चा हये।
6-8.10 xx xxx xx
8.11 अ तरा यीय वृजन संबंधी करण म जाित माण प क
यव था-
(i) अनुसूिचत जाित अथवा अनुसूिचत जनजाित का कोई य /
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:2807
5 WP-1728-2014
प रवार रा पित ारा सं वधान के अनु छे द-341 एवं 342 के तहत
जाितय क अिधसूचना जार होने के वष 1950 के बाद तथा अ य पछड़े
वग का कोई य / प रवार रा य सरकार क अिधसूचना दनांक 26
दस बर, 1984 जार होने के बाद कसी अ य रा य से वृ जत होकर
म य दे श म आया है , तो उसे/उसक संतान को म य दे श अनुसूिचत
जाितय , अनुसूिचत जनजाितय और अ य पछड़े वग के िलये जाित
माण प पृथक ा प-तीन (जो प रिश -'छः' पर है ) म जार कया
जाएगा ।
अ य रा य से वृजन कर म य दे श म आने वाले अ य पछड़े वग के य य के
िलये
जाित माण प
(म य दे श रा य के िलये मा य नह ं)
अनु मांक........................
मा णत कया जाता है क ी/ ीमती/कुमार ............पु /पु ी
ी............िनवासी. ाम/शहर...................तहसील.......... जला...
........... दे श/संघ े .............का/क िनवासी होकर सरल
कमांक...................पर उ ल खत जाित ....................का/क सद य
है , जो िन निल खत आदे श के तहत अ य पछड़ा वग के प म
अिधसूिचत है :-
* भारत के असाधारण राजप भाग ख ड-1 स. 186
दनांक 13 िसत बर, 1993 को कािशत संक प सं या
12011/68/93 बीसीसी (सी), दनांक 10 िसत बर, 1993.
* भारत के असाधारण राजप भाग 1 स. 163, दनांक 20
अ टू बर, 1994 म कािशत संक प सं.12011/9/94-वीसीसी
दनांक 19 अ टू बर, 1994.
* भारत के असाधारण राजप भाग 1 सं या 88 दनांक 25
गई, 1995 म कािशत संक प स. 12011/7/95-बीसीसी
दनांक 24 मई, 1995.
* भारत सरकार के असाधारण राजप सं.210 दनांक 11
दस बर 1996 म कािशत संक प सं. 12011/44/96-
बीसीसी दनांक 6 दस बर, 1996.
* भारत सरकार के असाधारण राजप सं. 129 दनांक 8
जुलाई 1997 म कािशत संक प सं. 12011/68/93-बीसीसी.
* भारत सरकार के असाधारण राजप सं. 164 दनांक 01
िसत बर 1997 म कािशत संक प सं. 12011/11/12/96-
बीसीसी.
* भारत सरकार के असाधारण राजप सं. 236 दनांक 11
दस बर 1997 म कािशत संक प सं. 12011/99/94-
बीसीसी
* भारत सरकार के असाधारण राजप सं. 239 दनांक 03
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:2807
6 WP-1728-2014
दस बर 1997 म कािशत संक प स. 12011/13/97-
बीसीसी
* भारत सरकार के असाधारण राजप सं. 166 दनांक 03
अग त 1998 म कािशत संक प सं. 12011/12/96-बीसीसी
* भारत सरकार के असाधारण राजप सं. 171 दनांक 06
अग त, 1998 म कािशत संक प . 12011/68/93-बीसीसी
* भारत सरकार के असाधारण राजप सं. 241 दनांक 27
अ टू बर, 1999 म कािशत संदा प स 12011/68/96-
बीसीसी
* भारत सरकार के असाधारण राजप सं. 270 दनांक 6
दस बर 1999 म कािशत संक प रां 12011/88/98-
बीसीसी.
* भारत सरकार के असाधारण राजप सं. 71 दनांक 4
अ ेल 2000 म कािशत संक प सं. 12011/36/99-बीसीसी.
2/ यह माण प ................................................ ारा (स म
अिधकार का नाम) ी/ ीमती/कुमार ........................पु /पु ी
ी................... ाम/शहर...............रा य/ जला..........रा य/संघ
े ...............को मांक........................ दनांक ारा दये गये
माण प के आधार पर दया जा रहा है , जसके
अनुसार.............................रा य/संघ े म इनक
जाित................... मांक...................पर अ य पछड़ा वग के प
म घो षत है ।
3/ यह भी मा णत कया जाता है क ी............................. भारत
सरकार के कािमक एवं िश ण वभाग के कायालय ापन सं.
36012/22/93-- था, (एससीट ) दनांक 8-9-1993 क अनुसूची के
कॉलम-3 म उ ल खत मीलेयर (स प न वग) य य /वग क
ण
े ी म नह ं आते ह।
रा य-म य दे श
दनांक..... स म ािधकार
मुहर ( जलाधीश / उपायु इ या द)
6. The judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Bir Singh
Vs. Delhi Jal Board and others, (2018) 10 SCC 312 in paragraphs 103 and
104 of the said decision is quoted as under:-
"103. The executive instructions/circulars issued by the
Government of India also reiterate to well-settled position.
Circular No. BC-16014/1/82-SC & BCD-I dated 6-8-1984 of the
Ministry of Home Affairs addressed to all State Governments and
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:2807
7 WP-1728-2014
UT Administration states that SC and ST on migration from the
State of his origin to another State will not lose his status as
SC/ST; but will be entitled to the concession/benefits admissible
to the SC/ST from the State of his origin and not from the State
where he has migrated. The relevant portion of the said circular
reads as under:
No. BC-16014/1/82-SC & BCD-I
Government of India/Bharat Sarkar
Ministry of Home Affairs/Grih Mantralaya
New Delhi, 6-8-1984
To,
The Chief Secretaries of All State Governments and UT
Administrations.
Subject. - Verification of claim of candidates belonging to
Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes and migrants from other
States/Union Territories- Form of certificate-Amendment to.
Sir,
........
2. The instructions issued in this Ministry's Letter of even number
dated 18-11-1982 will continue. It is, however, clarified that the
Scheduled c Caste/Scheduled Tribe person on migration from the
State of his origin Tribes but he will be entitled to the
concessions/benefits admissible to the Scheduled
Castes/Scheduled Tribes from the State of his origin and not to
another State will not lose his status as Scheduled Caste/Scheduled
from the State where he has migrated.... (emphasis added)
Yours faithfully
sd/-
Joint Secretary to Govt. of India
104. The same thing was reiterated in the Circular dated 22-2-
1985 issued by the Ministry of Home Affairs which has also
clarified that a Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe person who has
migrated from the State of origin to some other State for the
purpose of seeking education, employment, etc. will be deemed to
be a Scheduled Caste/Tribe of the State of his origin and will be
entitled to derive benefits from the State of origin and not from the
State to which he has migrated."
7. 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
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:2807
8 WP-1728-2014
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.
8. 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].
9. 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
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:2807
9 WP-1728-2014
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]
10. 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 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
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:2807
10 WP-1728-2014
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 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
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:2807
11 WP-1728-2014
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 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
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:2807
12 WP-1728-2014
origin."
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.
11. 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 OBC 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 OBC 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/OBC. The social, economic and educational backwardness
are factors, which are never identical or even similar in two different States.
12. 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
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:2807
13 WP-1728-2014
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. Preeti Gehlod Vs. M.P. State Election Commission
and others, (passed in Civil Revision No.574 of 2019, decided on
26.3.2025)].
13. 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]
14. The Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Smt. Preeti
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:2807
14 WP-1728-2014
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 election on the basis of a caste certificate issued by
the Competent Authority of the State of Rajasthan.
15. In the case herein the petitioner is possessing the caste certificate
issued by the State of U.P. and caste certificate from the State of M.P. has
been issued in her favour is not valid in accordance with GAD Circular & as
per the judgment of Apex Court. 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
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:2807
15 WP-1728-2014
borne in mind in interpreting the provisions of the Constitution
with reference to application of reservation to OBCs."
16. The relevant part of Guidelines for issuing Caste Certificate issued
by GAD No.F-7-2/96/आ. ./एक dated 12.03.1997 reads as under:-:-
"(ख) अ य पछड़े वग के य य के प म जाित माण प जार करने
संबंधी दशा-िनदश
1-12 xx xx xx
13. जन -अ तरा यीय वजन -(1) जहां कोई य एक रा य से
दसू रे रा य म जन करता है तो वह केवल उस रा य के बारे म ह
पछड़ा वग का सद य माना जायेगा जससे उसका मूल प से संबंध हो।
(2) य द पछड़ा वग का सद य कह ं अ य वजन करता है और वह
जाित/जनजााित उस दे श क अनुसूिचत सूची म नह ं ह तो उसे जाित
माण प ा करने क पा ता नह ं होगी।"
17. 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.
18. Consequently, all interim orders passed in favour of the petitioner
are also vacated and respondents are free to take appropriate action in
accordance with law with regard to intervenor.
19. Accordingly, the petition sans merits and is hereby dismissed.
(ANAND SINGH BAHRAWAT)
JUDGE
Monika
