Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 850 (RAJ)

Dhapi Devi v. State of Rajasthan

2019-03-14

ARUN BHANSALI

body2019
JUDGMENT 1. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner aggrieved against action of the respondents in not considering the petitioner as Scheduled Caste candidate for appointment as Teacher Grade- III (Level-II) (English) and a direction to consider the petitioner as Scheduled Caste candidate and give her appointment as per the merit with all consequential benefits. 2. It is, inter alia, indicated in the writ petition that pursuant to the advertisement dated 31.07.2018 for the post of Teacher Grade-III (Level-II) subject English, the petitioner applied as a Scheduled Caste candidate. In the cut off issued by the respondents as the petitioner had obtained higher marks, by order dated 05.03.2019 the petitioner was selected and was allotted District Chittorgarh, however, in the document verification, the petitioner was held ineligible as a Scheduled Caste candidate. 3. It is submitted that though petitioner was born in State of Haryana, on account of her marriage with Rohtash Kumar, the petitioner resides at District Hanumangarh within Rajasthan State. The petitioner belongs to Chamar community, which is Scheduled Caste in State of Haryana as well as in State of Rajasthan and based on which the petitioner was issued the caste certificate, however, based on the stipulation indicated in the advertisement that the candidate has to produce the caste certificate from the Rajasthan State in name of her father, her candidature has been rejected. 4. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the action of the respondents in this regard in holding the petitioner ineligible on account of her not falling within the reserved category Scheduled Caste is bad. The stipulation in the advertisement in this regard also cannot be read against the petitioner, inasmuch as, in the place of her birth in State of Haryana as well as in Rajasthan, both the places, the petitioner is member of Scheduled Caste and, therefore, the action of the respondents cannot be sustained. 5. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner and have perused the material available on record. 6. The facts are not in dispute wherein the petitioner prior to her marriage on 29.06.2008 was resident of Haryana and on account of her marriage shifted to Rajasthan. It is also not in dispute that her caste Chamar is included in the list of Schedule Castes, both in the State of Haryana and State of Rajasthan. 7. 6. The facts are not in dispute wherein the petitioner prior to her marriage on 29.06.2008 was resident of Haryana and on account of her marriage shifted to Rajasthan. It is also not in dispute that her caste Chamar is included in the list of Schedule Castes, both in the State of Haryana and State of Rajasthan. 7. The relevant stipulation in the advertisement reads as under:- ^^¼5½ 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 tkosxkA** 8. The issue which arises for consideration is whether a person like petitioner who is a Scheduled Caste in the State where she is born is not entitled to benefit of reservation after marriage in the State where her husband is living despite the fact that the husband also belongs to Scheduled Caste and the particular caste falls in the same reserved category in the State of migration and that she is a permanent resident of that State. 9. The issue is no more res integra as the said issue was referred to Larger Bench in Civil Appeal No. 8425/2013 : Ranjana Kumari v. State of Uttarakhand & Ors. , wherein the Larger Bench decided 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 v. 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. v. Union of India & Anr. 4. Two Constitution Bench judgments of this Court in Marri Chandra Shekhar Rao v. 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. v. 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." 10. It has been laid down by Honble Supreme Court that on account of marriage, the migrant from one State to another State despite the fact that her caste is recognized as Scheduled Caste in both the States is not entitled to the benefit of reservation. 11. In view of the above law laid down by Honble Supreme Court in the case of Ranjana Kumari (supra) there is no substance in the writ petition and the same is, therefore, dismissed.