JUDGEMENT Dev Darshan Sud, J (oral) The grievance of the petitioner inter-alia is that order Annexure P-5, which holds that by virtue of marriage of the petitioner herein, who was of OBC category, in the family of general class, her reservation in the OBC category stands forfeited, and vide Annexure P-3, consequent action taken by the State cancelling certificate Annexure P1 are unconstitutional and void. 2. I am not going into the other aspects of the case as the primary point which is urged before me is that the petitioner belongs to the OBC category and this fact is acknowledged and accepted vide Annexure P-1. This certificate has been issued by the Executive Magistrate (Tehsildar), Bhoranj declaring her to be Other Backward Class. Vide Annexure P-3, the respondents had cancelled her OBC certificate by holding: “Refer to the OBC certificate No. 5690/2008 dated 15-7-2008 issued in your favour. In this respect, it is intimated that as per Govt. letter No., WLF-CG(10-1/99)-1 dated 15-1-2005 from Principal Secretary to the Govt. of HP, Shimla, any woman who belongs to OBC and has been transplanted in a family of general class by way of voluntary act of marriage has automatically became a member of forward class hence not entitled for certificate of OBC neither at her place of birth nor the place where she has been married. The above OBC Certificate has mistakenly been issued in your favour, hence the same is hereby cancelled “ 3. It is undisputed before me that this case is squarely covered by the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in CWP No. 5744 of 2010, titled Meena Devi vs. Himachal Pradesh State Subordinate Services Selection Board decided on 9.8.2011 holding:“7That authority should have noticed that one cannot acquire the status of a caste by being transplanted into that caste by marriage. A person born in a caste, having had the advantage or disadvantage of belonging to that caste in life, and thereafter moving to another caste by transplantation by either adoption or marriage or conversion cannot claim the advantage or dis-advantage, as the case may be, of transplanted caste. That position is well settled by the decision of the Supreme Court in Valssamma Paul versus Cochin University, reported in 1996 (3) SCC 545. It has been held at paragraph 34 of the said decision as follows: “34. That position is well settled by the decision of the Supreme Court in Valssamma Paul versus Cochin University, reported in 1996 (3) SCC 545. It has been held at paragraph 34 of the said decision as follows: “34. A candidate who had the advantageous start in life being born in Forward Caste and had march of advantageous life but is transplanted in Backward Caste by adoption or marriage or conversion, does not become eligible to the benefit of reservation either under Article 15(4) or 16(4), as the case may be. Acquisition of the status of Scheduled Caste etc. by voluntary mobility into these categories would play fraud on the Constitution, and would frustrate the benign constitutional policy under Article 15(4) and 16(4) of the Constitution.” 8. The petitioner is born in ‘Tarkhan’ caste, which is OBC in Himachal Pradesh. By marriage only she was transplanted into ‘Luhar’ community which is a Scheduled Caste. By that marriage, the petitioner does not undergo any change in her original caste. Unto death, she is a member of ‘Tarkhan’ caste which is OBC. In the above circumstances, there will be a direction to the respondent- Board to treat the petitioner as OBC candidate for all purposes and regularize her appointment accordingly.” This decision has been subsequently followed in CWP No. 8107 of 2011-A, titled Neelam Devi vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and others decided on 16th December, 2011. In these circumstances, this writ petition is allowed. Annexures P-3 and P-5 are quashed and set aside. Necessary consequences shall follow.