State Of Rajasthan vs Taviyad Parvati Bahen
2022 Latest Caselaw 330 Raj

(1 of 4) [SAW-58/2021]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 58/2021

1. State of Rajasthan through the Secretary, Department of Medical and Health, Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur, Rajasthan.

2. Director, Medical and Health Services, Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur, Rajasthan.

3. Additional Director (Admn.), Medical and Health Services, Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur, Rajasthan.

----Appellants Versus

1. Taviyad Parvati Bahen D/o Shri Rupji Bhai, aged about 35 years, R/o Anand Puri, District Banswara, Rajasthan.

2. Kokila Ben D/o Shri Surji Bhai, R/o Village Gatroad, Post Ambadara, Tehsil Bagidora, District Banswara, Rajasthan.

----Respondents

For Appellant(s) : Mr. Rajat Arora associate to Mr. K.S.

Rajpurohit, AAG through VC For Respondent(s) : Mr. Shambhoo Singh Rathore through VC

HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. AKIL KURESHI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMESHWAR VYAS

Judgment

06/01/2022

In IA No. 01/2019 :

For the reasons mentioned in the application, the delay

caused in filing the appeal is condoned.

The application is disposed of.

In SAW No. 58/2021 :

This appeal is filed by the State Government to challenge the

judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 04.10.2017 passed in

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 462/2016.

(2 of 4) [SAW-58/2021]

The short question arising in this appeal is whether a person

belonging to Scheduled Tribe in other State upon her migration

after marriage to the State of Rajasthan can carry the status of

Scheduled Tribe. The question was answered in favour of the

respondents-original petitioners by the learned Single Judge in

impugned judgment relying on a decision of Single Bench of this

Court in case of Pushpa & Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.

(S.B. C.W.P. No. 12198/2015). We may record that the

judgment of the learned Single Bench in case of Pushpa & Ors.

(supra) was confirmed by the Division Bench by Judgment dated

30.03.2017. We are informed that SLP was dismissed on the

ground of delay. Despite these developments, we do not think

that the learned Single Judge was correct in granting benefit of

reservation to the petitioners on the stated grounds. The law is

sufficiently clear namely that upon migration from one State to

another, the member of Scheduled Tribe would not carry the

status of Scheduled Tribe to the State of migration. In particular,

in case of Ranjana Kumari Vs. State of Uttarakhand & Ors.

(Civil Appeal No. 8425/2013), Three Judges Bench of Supreme

Court in the judgment dated 01.11.2018 has dealt with this very

issue in the following manner :-

"1. We have heard the learned counsels for the parties and perused the relevant material.

2. The appellant who belongs to Valmiki caste (Scheduled Caste) of the State of Punjab married a person belonging to the Valmiki caste of Uttarakhand and migrated to that State. In the State of Uttarakhand under the Presidential Order 'Valmiki' is also recognized as a notified Scheduled Caste. The

(3 of 4) [SAW-58/2021]

State of Uttarakhand issued a certificate to the appellant.

3. The appellant contended before the High Court that she was a Scheduled Caste of the State of Uttarakhand. The High Court having rejected the claim, the appellant is in appeal before us.

4. Two Constitution Bench judgments of this Court in Marri Chandra Shekhar Rao vs. Dean, Seth G.S. Medical College & Ors. and Action Committee on Issue of Caste Certificate to Scheduled Castes & Tribes in the State of Maharashtra & Anr. vs. Union of India & Anr., have taken the view that merely because in the migrant State the same caste is recognized as Scheduled Caste, the migrant cannot be recognized as Scheduled Caste of the migrant State. The issuance of a caste certificate by the State of Uttarakhand, as in the present case, cannot dilute the rigours of the Constitution Bench Judgments in Marri Chandra Shekhar Rao (supra) and Action Committee (supra).

5. We, therefore, find no error in the order of the High Court to justify any interference. The appeal is accordingly dismissed."

The Constitution Bench judgment of Supreme Court in case

of Bir Singh Vs. Delhi Jal Board [(2018) 10 SCC 312] would

also be relevant.

Learned counsel for the respondents-original petitioners,

however, vehemently contended that the State of Rajasthan itself

has amended its policy by issuing a notification dated 21.10.2019.

Our attention was drawn to the said notification as well as decision

of the Division Bench of this Court dated 04.01.2020 in case of

State of Rajasthan & Ors. Vs. Smt. Twarita Gehlot (D.B.

(4 of 4) [SAW-58/2021]

Special Appeal (Writ) No. 576/2018), in which relying on the

said notification of the State of Rajasthan, the appeal was

dismissed.

We, however, find that the said notification does not concern

the present issue at hand. The notification of the State

Government is in relation to the benefits to be granted to the

residents of Tribal Sub Plan area ('TSP' for short). It is in this

context, the State Government has made certain clarifications and

modifications, which include that a person residing in the said area

after marriage would also get the benefits. This notification would

throw no light on the present controversy. The question, as

narrated in the outset, is whether a person who belongs to the

Scheduled Tribe and hails from other State, can carry status upon

her migration through marriage to the State of Rajasthan. The

answer has been rendered by the Supreme Court specifically in

case of Ranjana Kumari (supra) and the State appeal is, therefore,

allowed. The judgment of the learned Single Judge is reversed.

(RAMESHWAR VYAS),J (AKIL KURESHI),CJ

10-Mak/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)