Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
The State Of Rajasthan vs Mamta (2025:Rj-Jd:45246-Db) on 15 October, 2025
[2025:RJ-JD:45246-DB]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 1203/2019
1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary
Department Of Rural Development And Panchayati Raj,
Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur (Raj.).
2. The Secretary, Department Of Education, Government Of
Rajasthan, Jaipur (Raj.).
3. The Director, Elementary Education, Bikaner, District
Bikaner, Rajasthan.
4. The Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad Barmer, District
Barmer (Raj.).
5. District Establishment Committee, Through Its Chairman
Zila Parishad Barmer, District Barmer (Raj.).
6. The District Education Officer, Elementary Education,
District Barmer, Rajasthan.
----Appellants
Versus
1. Mamta D/o Ram Singh, W/o Govind Prakash, Aged About
36 Years, R/o VPO Dumoli Khurd, Tehsil - Buhana, District
Jhunjhunu.
2. Sumitra Tanwar D/o Phool Singh Tanwar, Roll No.
15219333 Through Zila Parishad, Barmer.
----Respondents
For Appellant(s) : Mr. I.R. Choudhary, AAG with
Mr. Pawan Bharti
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Madhu Lal Devra
HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MR. SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANUROOP SINGHI
Order
15/10/2025
1. The issue raised in the present appeal is no more res-
integra, keeping in view the settled law as laid down by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in Bir Singh Vs. Delhi Jal Board & Ors.;
(2018) 10 SCC 312. The migration of a reserved category
person from one State to another on account of marriage or on
account of any other reasons would not give her right of carrying
her status of reserved category which she was enjoying in the
(Uploaded on 17/10/2025 at 04:05:09 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:45246-DB] (2 of 4) [SAW-1203/2019]
earlier State to the new State where she migrates. It would be
apposite to quote para Nos.2, 34, 36, 37, 38 and 69 of the
judgment, which reads as under:-
"2. In State of Uttaranchal v. Sandeep Kumar Singh
[(2010) 12 SCC 794] the following question arose
for consideration of this Court: (SCC p. 795, para 1)
"1. whether a person belonging to a Scheduled Caste
in relation to a particular State would be entitled or
not, to the benefits or concessions allowed to
Scheduled Caste candidate in the matter of
employment, in any other State?"
34. Unhesitatingly, therefore, it can be said that a
person belonging to a Scheduled Caste in one State
cannot be deemed to be a Scheduled Caste person
in relation to any other State to which he migrates
for the purpose of employment or education. The
expressions "in relation to that State or Union
Territory" and "for the purpose of this Constitution"
used in Articles 341 and 342 of the Constitution of
India would mean that the benefits of reservation
provided for by the Constitution would stand
confined to the geographical territories of a
State/Union Territory in respect of which the lists of
Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes have been
notified by the Presidential Orders issued from time
to time. A person notified as a Scheduled Caste in
State 'A' cannot claim the same status in another
State on the basis that he is declared as a Scheduled
Caste in State 'A'.
36. The upshot of the aforesaid discussion would
lead us to the conclusion that the Presidential Orders
issued under Article 341 in regard to Scheduled
Castes and under Article 342 in regard to Scheduled
Tribes cannot be varied or altered by any authority
including the Court. It is Parliament alone which has
been vested with the power to so act, that too, by
laws made. Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes
thus specified in relation to a State or a Union
Territory does not carry the same status in another
State or Union Territory. Any expansion/deletion of
(Uploaded on 17/10/2025 at 04:05:09 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:45246-DB] (3 of 4) [SAW-1203/2019]
the list of Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes by any
authority except Parliament would be against the
constitutional mandate under Articles 341 and 342
of the Constitution of India.
37. Article 16(4) is an enabling provision. It enables
the State to provide to Backward Classes including
Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes reservation
in appointments to public services. Such reservation
is to be provided on the basis of quantifiable data
indicating the adequacy or inadequacy, as may be,
of the representation of such classes in Government
service. The data which is the basis of the
satisfaction of the State being verifiable, is open to
judicial scrutiny on the limited ground of relevance
of the circumstances on which the satisfaction is
moulded. The policy decision to provide reservation,
of course, is beyond the pale of judicial review.
38. It is an unquestionable principle of interpretation
that interrelated statutory as well as constitutional
provisions have to be harmoniously construed and
understood so as to avoid making any provision
nugatory and redundant. If the list of Scheduled
Castes/Scheduled Tribes in the Presidential Orders
under Articles 341/342 is subject to alteration only
by laws made by Parliament, operation of the lists of
Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes beyond the
classes or categories enumerated under the
Presidential Order for a particular State/Union
Territory by exercise of the enabling power vested by
Article 16(4)would have the obvious effect of
circumventing the specific constitutional provisions
in Articles 341/342. In this regard, it must also be
noted that the power under Article 16(4) is not only
capable of being exercised by a legislative provision/
enactment but also by an Executive Order issued
under Article 166 of the Constitution. It will,
therefore, be in consonance with the constitutional
scheme to understand the enabling provision under
Article 16(4) to be available to provide reservation
only to the classes or categories of Scheduled
Castes/Scheduled Tribes enumerated in the
Presidential Orders for a particular State/Union
Territory within the geographical area of that State
and not beyond. If in the opinion of a State it is
(Uploaded on 17/10/2025 at 04:05:09 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:45246-DB] (4 of 4) [SAW-1203/2019]
necessary to extend the benefit of reservation to a
class/category of Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes
beyond those specified in the Lists for that particular
State, constitutional discipline would require the
State to make its views in the matter prevail with
the central authority so as to enable an appropriate
parliamentary exercise to be made by an
amendment of the Lists of Scheduled
Castes/Scheduled Tribes for that particular State.
Unilateral action by States on the touchstone of
Article 16(4) of the Constitution could be a possible
trigger point of constitutional anarchy and therefore
must be held to be impermissible under the
Constitution.
Conclusion
69. Accordingly, we answer the question referred in
terms of the views expressed in para 38 of this
opinion...."
2. In view of the settled law as above, we are unable to sustain
the order passed by the learned Single Judge wherein the learned
Single Judge has held that as the caste of the petitioner is same in
both incoming and outgoing States, she would be entitled to claim
reservation as prescribed under law.
3. The view expressed by the learned Single Judge being
opposite to what has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
Bir Singh's case (supra), the judgment passed by the learned
Single Judge deserves to be set aside and we accordingly set aside
the judgment dated 15.01.2018.
4. The appeal is accordingly, allowed.
5. All pending applications also stand disposed of.
(ANUROOP SINGHI),J (SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA),ACJ
59-Suraj/-
(Uploaded on 17/10/2025 at 04:05:09 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
