Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 288 (RAJ)

Anju Rani v. State of Rajasthan

2019-01-23

ARUN BHANSALI

body2019
JUDGMENT : Arun Bhansali, J. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner aggrieved against refusal to issue OBC Non Creamy Layer caste certificate to the petitioner and cancellation of her candidature for the post of Teacher Gr.-III, Level-II subject English. 2. It is, inter alia, indicated by the petitioner that petitioner belongs to Khati caste/community which is notified as Backward Class by the Government of Haryana and a certificate in this regard was issued by Tehsildar, Ellenabad (Annexure-1). On account of her marriage on 09.05.2016 the petitioner shifted to Hanumangarh, Rajasthan and pursuant to the advertisement dated 31.07.2018 applied for the post of Teacher Gr.-III, Level-II for subject English and indicated her status as OBC Non Creamy Layer, essentially on account of the fact that the caste of the petitioner and that of her husband is included in the list of OBC in State of Rajasthan as well. The petitioner had higher marks than the cut off declared on 03.09.2018 by the respondents, however, her candidature has not been considered by the respondents in absence of a valid OBC Non Creamy Layer certificate. 3. Averments have also been made that the petitioner has not been issued the certificate in this regard by the respondents and, therefore, she is entitled for issuance of certificate and grant of appointment based no her merit. 4. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that though the petitioner was born in the State of Haryana, on account of her marriage the petitioner now resides at District Hanumangarh within State of Rajasthan. The petitioner belongs to Khati community, which is included in OBC in the State of Haryana as well as in the State of Rajasthan and, based on which, the petitioner is entitled to be dealt with as an OBC Non Creamy Layer candidate by the respondents and the action of the respondents in rejecting her candidature deserves to be quashed. Reliance has been placed on judgment of Allahabad High Court in Writ No. 11039/2018 : Vipin Kumar Maurya & 4 Ors. v. State of U.P. & 3 Ors., decided on 16.01.2019. 5. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner and have perused the material available on record. 6. Reliance has been placed on judgment of Allahabad High Court in Writ No. 11039/2018 : Vipin Kumar Maurya & 4 Ors. v. State of U.P. & 3 Ors., decided on 16.01.2019. 5. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner and have perused the material available on record. 6. The relevant stipulation, as indicated in the advertisement, though the petitioner has not produced the full advertisement, as has been noticed by this Court in Shimla Devi v. State of Rajasthan & Ors. : S.B.C.W.P. No. 17974/2018, decided on 15.01.2019, reads as under:- ^^5- vuqlwfpr tkfr] vuqlwfpr tutkfr] fiNM+k oxZ ,oa vfr fiNM+k oxZ ds vkjf{kr in dsoy vuqlwfpr tkfr] vuqlwfpr tutkfr] fiNM+k oxZ ,oa vfr fiNM+k oxZ ds vH;fFkZ;ksa] tks jktLFkku jkT; ds LFkkbZ fuoklh gS] ls gh Hkjs tkosaxsA jktLFkku jkT; ls fHkUu vU; jkT;ksa ds vuqlwfpr tkfr@vuqlwfpr tutkfr@fiNM+k oxZ ,oa vfr fiNM+k oxZ ds vH;fFkZ;ksa dks lkekU; oxZ dk ekuk tkosaxkA** 7. The issue which arises is whether a person like petitioner, who is an OBC in the State where she is born is entitled to benefit of reservation after marriage in the State of Rajasthan where her husband is living, her husband also belongs to OBC and the particular caste falls in the OBC in the State of migration and she is now a permanent resident of that State. 8. The issue is no more res integra as the said issue was referred to Larger Bench of Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 8425/2013 : Ranjana Kumari v. State of Uttarakhand & Ors., wherein, the Larger Bench laid down on 01.11.2018, as under:- "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 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. 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 & Scheduled 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." 9. It was laid down that on account of marriage, the migrant from one State to another State despite the fact that her caste is recognized as entitled to reservation in both the States is not entitled to the benefit of reservation. The said judgment applies on all force to the facts of the present case. 10. So far as the judgment of Allahabad High Court in the case of Vipin Kumar Maurya (supra) is concerned, the stipulation reads as under:- ^^14¼3½ vuqlwfpr tkfr] vuqlwfpr tutkfr] vU; fiNM+k oxZ] Lora=rk laxzke lsukuh ds vkfJr@HkwriwoZ lSfud] fodykaxtu rFkk efgyk vH;fFkZ;ksa dks] tks mŒÁŒ jkT; ds ewy fuoklh ugha gS] mUgsa vkj{k.k dk ykHk vuqeU; ugha gSA ,sls vH;FkhZ lkekU; Js.kh ds ekus tk,axsA efgyk vH;fFkZ;ksa ds ekeys esa firk i{k ls fuxZr Áek.k i= gh ekU; gksxkA** 11. The above stipulation restricted the benefit of horizontal reservation to women for outside the State of U.P. as such and therefore, the Allahabad High Court in the said judgment struck down the said condition in so far as the same restricted the grant of horizontal reservation to women, who were original residents of the State of U.P. The said judgment has no application to the facts of the present case as in the said judgment the provision denied horizontal reservation as such to women from outside the State, however, the same is not the condition in Rajasthan. The restriction only pertains to seeking reservation as SC, ST or OBC. 12. In view of the law laid down by Supreme Court in the case of Ranjana Kumari (supra), in so far as denial of benefit of reservation to the petitioner is concerned, there is no substance in the writ petition and the same is, therefore, dismissed. 13. However, in so far as issuance of caste certificate is concerned, the petitioner would be free to agitate her cause, appropriately.