B. PANIGRAHI, J. ( 1 ) THIS writ application has assailed the validity, properiety and legality of the order passed by the Tahasildar, Kujang rejecting an application filed by the petitioner for issuance of a Certificate of Other Backward Caste (in short 'o. B. C. ') in her favour. ( 2 ) THE facts of the case lie within a short-compass. Petitioner, who is Brahmin by caste married to one Raj Kishore Nath, who is a 'tanti' by caste sometimes in 1986 according to the Hindu customary rites and ceremonies. Undisputedly the caste 'tanti' comes under the purview of the Other Backward Caste and accordingly petitioner's husband Raj Kishore Nath was granted an O. B. C. Certificate by the competent authority on 17-11-2001 vide Annexure-1 to the writ application. The petitioner filed an application before the Tahasildar, Kujang for issuance of an O. B. C. Certificate in her favour, which was registered as Misc. Case No. 1282/2001. The Tahasildar. Kujanga (Opp. party No. 3) after due enquiry rejected the application of the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner was born and brought up in a Brahmin Caste. It is alleged by the petitioner that since her husband undisputedly belongs to 'tanti' by caste and their marriage was solemnised in accordance with the Hindu customary rites and ceremonies adopted by both the respective families and more particularly when she imbibed the rites and ceremonies performed by the people of Tanti caste and she was accepted by the Tanti Community and as they are governed by the Hindu Mitakshara Law, she is entitled to an O. B. C. Certificate from the competent authority. It has been further stated that during the last 15 years of their marriage, two children were born through their wedlock of whom one is studying in Class IV and the other in Class VII. After such marriage the petitioner became a member of the family of her husband and, thus, is enjoying the social status as a legally married wife and has been recognised as the wife of Raj Kishore Nath by the people of the community at large. ( 3 ) THE opposite parties did not file any counter affidavit denying the facts stated in the writ petition. ( 4 ) MR. G. K. Mohanty, learned Addl. ( 3 ) THE opposite parties did not file any counter affidavit denying the facts stated in the writ petition. ( 4 ) MR. G. K. Mohanty, learned Addl. Government Advocate argued with great vehemence that since the petitioner belongs to a higher caste with the back ground of well Education and advancement of economic status, she cannot claim any special status as is admissible to the Other Backward Classes, Dalits (Scheduled Castes) and Scheduled Tribes and recognised by Articles 15 (2) and 17 of the Constitution of India. Undisputedly the O. B. Cs. , Dalits (Scheduled Castes) and Scheduled Tribes suffered a taboo socially, culturally and educationally and thus became backward class. Therefore, reservation for removing the disparity in the matter of handicaps, disadvantages, sufferings and restrictions to which they were subjected to was made in the Constitution of India. The other object of reservation was also to bring them to national mainstream along with other higher caste people by providing them reasonable opportunities and facilities. Education, employment and economic empowerment are some of the essential requirements of different Programmes prepared by the Government. Therefore, the State has evolved reservation policy under Articles 15 (4) and 46 of the Constitution of India and provide them economic benefits. If a person belonging to higher caste is transplanted he has not undergone same handicaps and deprivation and has not been subjected to same disabilities, disadvantages, indignities or sufferings like a person born in a community belonging to O. B. C. so as to entitle him/ her to avail the facility of reservation. If it is shown that a person being born in a higher caste, he /she had the advantageous start in life and had availed of other privilege, honour and facility but is transplanted into a Backward caste by adoption or marriage or conversion, he/she does not become eligible to the benefits of reservation. In case such rights are provided to those persons who had the advantageous start before adoption or marriage or conversion, it would amount to playing fraud on the Constitution and frustrate the benign Constitutional Policy guaranteed under Articles 15 (4) and 16 (4) of the Constitution of India. Thus recognition of the person/candidate by the members of the backward class would not be relevant for the purpose of his entitlement to the reservation policy under Article 16 (4) of the Constitution of India. Thus recognition of the person/candidate by the members of the backward class would not be relevant for the purpose of his entitlement to the reservation policy under Article 16 (4) of the Constitution of India. ( 5 ) MR. Mohanty's contention needs careful and anxious consideration in the light of the judgment reported in AIR 1996 SC 1011 (Mrs. Valsamma Paul v. l Cochin University ). In the aforesaid case we find that the judgment reported in AIR 1972 SC 1840 (N. E. Horo v. Jahan Ara Jai Pal Singh) was taken note of. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Valsamma's case had the occasion to consider the ratio of the decision in N. E. Horo's case (supra ). The rights regarding Admission into Educational Institutions and seeking employment of a person previously belonging to upper Caste who claims to have been transplanted into the family of a backward caste by adoption, marriage and conversion was discussed. The Supreme Court held that the principles laid down in N. E. Horo's case would not be applicable in the field of Admission into Educational Institutions and employment. In Valsamma's case the appellant who belonged to a members of forward class married to a person belonging to a Backward class-Fishermen and had applied for selection as Lecturer in Cochin University against a reserved post claiming herself as a reserved candidate. The University selected her on that basis and accordingly appointed her against the reserved post. Her appointment was challenged in Kerala High Court and finally a Full Bench of Kerala High Court held that though the appellant, a member of forward class, was married to a member of Backward Class, by marriage she does not become a member of that class nor can she claim the status as a backward class. When the matter went to the Supreme Court Their Lordships concurred the findings of the Full Bench of Kerala High Court by saying that the recognition of the appellant by the member of the Backward class would not provide rights and benefits of reservation under Article 16 (4) of the Constitution as she, as a member of the forward caste, had advantageous start in life and after completing education and becoming major married to a member of backward class. ( 6 ) A piquant question has arisen in this case as to whether the children born through the spouses (one belonging to OBC and the other to a higher class) shall get the benefit as regards Admission into Educational Institutions and employment under the reservation policy evolved by the State. It is needless to say that if the girl belonging to a higher caste is transplanted into the family of a lower /backward caste or reserved community by adoption, marriage or conversion and is recognised and accepted by the members of that backward community, indubitably the children born through them shall get right under the reservation policy in the field of Admission into Educational Institutions and also employment. ( 7 ) A question arose before the Apex Court as to whether a person even though was born of Christian Parents who originally belonged to Scheduled Caste but had left Hinduism and embraced Christianity, in the event of his /her reconversion to Hinduism and marriage to a person belonging to Hindu religion, he /she is transplanted into Hindu caste. The Apex Court in the case reported AIR 1984 SC 600 (Kailash Sonkar v. Smt. Maya Devi) has observed that when a child is born neither has he any religion nor is he capable of choosing one until he reached the age of discretion and acquires proper understanding of the situation. Hence the mere fact that the parents of a child, who were Christians, would in ordinary course get the usual baptism certificate and perform other ceremonies without the child knowing what is being done, but after the child has grown up and becomes fully mature and is able to decide his future, he ought not to be bound by what his parents may have done. Therefore, in such cases, it is the intention of the convertee which would determine the revival of the caste. If by his clear and conclusive conduct the person reconverts to his old faith and adjure the new religion in unequivocal terms, his caste automatically revives. But this does not mean that the reconversion should be only a ruse or a pretext or a cover to gain mudane worldly benefits so that the reconversion becomes merely a show for achieving a particular purpose whereas the real intention may be shrouded in mystery. But this does not mean that the reconversion should be only a ruse or a pretext or a cover to gain mudane worldly benefits so that the reconversion becomes merely a show for achieving a particular purpose whereas the real intention may be shrouded in mystery. The reconversion must exhibit a clear and genuine intention to go back to his old fold and adopt the customs and practices of the said fold without any protest from members of his erstwhile caste. It is not necessary to judge that there should be direct or conclusive proof of the expression of the views of the community of the erstwhile caste and it would be sufficient compliance once of this condition if no exception or protest is lodged by the community members. ( 8 ) IN the case of N. E. Horo (supra) cited by Mr. J. Katikia, learned Advocate for the petitioner, an election of a Member to Lok Sabha was challenged. In that election a female who was not a member of a tribe by virtue of birth but married to a tribal after due observance of all formalities and after obtaining the approval of the elders of the tribe to which her husband belonged filed her nomination. The Returning Officer rejected her nomination paper on the ground that she was a non-Munda by virtue of her birth and married to a munda, but by virtue of the marriage with a Munda she therefore, could not ipso facto become a Munda, as the Constituency was earmarked for Scheduled Tribe candidates. A Division Bench of Patna High Court set aside the election of the returned candidate and had taken the view that the use of the term "tribal communities" in addition to the term "tribe" in Article 342 shows that a wide import and meaning should be given to these words and even if the non-munda female was not a member of the Munda tribe by virtue of birth she having been married to a Munda after due observance of all formalities and after obtaining the approval of the elders of the tribes would be transplanted into the tribal community to which her husband belonged on the analogy of the wife taking the husband's domicile. Even without invoking the doctrine of domicile the marriage of a non-Munda female with a Munda having been approved and sanctioned by the Parha Panchayat of the Munda tribe it can well be said that she became a member of the Munda tribal community. The matter went in appeal before the Hon'ble Supreme Court and their Lordships of Supreme Court held (Para 23 of AIR 1972 SC 1840 ) :-"we have not been shown any infirmity in the reasoning of the High Court on this point. When a person, in the course of time, has been assimilated in the community it is somewhat difficult to comprehend how that person can be denied the rights and privileges which may be conferred on that community even though tribal by constitutional provisions. "the Hon'ble Supreme Court concurred the view of Patna High Court and dismissed the appeal. ( 9 ) THEREFORE, from the rationale of the above judgment, we gather that if a female of higher caste has been assimilated in the family of a lower caste and adopted to that caste and she has been recognised as a member of that community, then her right cannot be defeated in contesting the election from the reserved constituency although she before marriage, adoption or conversion was a member of the higher caste. The principles enshrined in the above judgment unmistakably establish that the facts of each case has to be considered and decided basing on the facts of that case. The person who claims benefit for being a candidate from reserved constituency in the election shall have no proof by unquestionable and unimpeachable evidence that he /she has been assimilated in the family of the other and the relations and caste people of that community have accepted or recognised him/ her as a member of their community. In the event of such question being answered in affirmative he/she shall be regarded as a member of that community. ( 10 ) IN this case, we found the Tahasildar in a cryptic manner rejected the petitioner's prayer for issuance of an O. B. C. Certificate. We, therefore, did not appreciate the manner in which he acted. In the event of such question being answered in affirmative he/she shall be regarded as a member of that community. ( 10 ) IN this case, we found the Tahasildar in a cryptic manner rejected the petitioner's prayer for issuance of an O. B. C. Certificate. We, therefore, did not appreciate the manner in which he acted. He should have called upon the petitioner to prove that she was assimilated in the family of her husband and has been recognised as a member of his community, failing which she could not claim any right as a member of O. B. C. ( 11 ) ACCORDINGLY, we direct the Tahasildar to enquire into the matter whether after the marriage of the petitioner she has been assimilated in the family of her husband and whether she has been accepted and recognised by the member of the community of her husband by following their customs and rituals and other essentials. If all these questions are answered in affirmative by the petitioner, then the authority can issue such certificate in her favour only for the purpose of contesting as a candidate in the election from O. B. C. constituency. ( 12 ) BY an interim arrangement we had permitted the petitioner to file her nomination for election in the aforesaid reserved Constituency. In case she will be returned in the election, but finally could not prove her case before the authority, the result of the election will ipso facto be annulled. ( 13 ) WITH the aforesaid observation and direction the writ application is disposed of. In the facts and circumstances, parties shall bear their own costs. ( 14 ) M. PAPANNA, J. :- I agree. Order accordingly.