JUDGMENT : 1. Learned counsel for the petitioner is permitted to correct the designation of the respondent no.8 as “Returning Officer (Mukhiya)-cum-Circle Officer, Jari, Gumla” in course of the day. 2. The present writ petition has been filed for quashing the letter no.14 dated 10th January, 2019 issued by the respondent no.3 as well as letter no.014 dated 25th February, 2019 (in part), particularly paragraph no.10 of the same, issued by the respondent no.4, whereby women who migrate from other State to the State of Jharkhand after marriage have been denied benefit of reservation in the State of Jharkhand. Further prayer has been made for quashing the order dated 5th May, 2022 passed by the respondent no.8, whereby the petitioner’s candidature for the post of Mukhiya, Govindpur Panchayat has been rejected. 3. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the contents of the writ petition. 4. The case of the petitioner is that she originally belonged to Oraon tribe (Scheduled Tribe category) in the State of Chhatisgarh. After her marriage with Narayan Oraon, a person of Oraon Tribe in the State of Jharkhand, she has settled here. The petitioner under the impression that after marriage she has become part and parcel of Oraon Tribe of the State of Jharkhand contested Panchayat election for the post of Mukhiya, Govindpur Panchayat under Scheduled Tribe category. She, accordingly, filed nomination on 29th April, 2022, however, her nomination was rejected by the Returning Officer (Mukhiya)-cum-Circle Officer, Jari, District Gumla vide order dated 5th May, 2022 on the ground that she was not entitled to get the benefit of reservation in the State of Jharkhand. While passing the said order, the Returning Officer relied upon letter no.14 dated 10th January, 2019 and letter no.14 dated 25th February, 2019 issued by the Department of Personnel, Administrative Reforms and Rajbhasha, Government of Jharkhand, wherein it has been specified that women of reserved category of other States who have migrated after their marriage will not be entitled to get benefit of reservation in the State of Jharkhand. The petitioner has, thus, filed the present writ petition, challenging letter no.14 dated 10th January, 2019 and letter no.14 dated 25th February, 2019 (in part), particularly paragraph no.10 of the same, issued by the State Government as well as the order dated 5th May, 2022 passed by the Returning Officer (Mukhiya)-cum-Circle Officer, Jari, Gumla, rejecting her nomination for the post of Mukhiya. 5. The issue as to whether a person of other State belonging to reserved category, if migrates to other State, will get the benefit of reservation in the State to which he/she has migrated, has already been set at rest by the Constitution Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases of Marri Chandra Shekhar Rao Vs. Seth G.S. Medical College, reported in (1990)3 SCC 130 and Action Committee on Issue of Caste Certificate to SCs/STs Vs. Union of India, reported in (1994)5 SCC 244 . 6. In the case of Marri Chandra Shekhar Rao (Supra.), the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under:- “13. It is trite knowledge that the statutory and constitutional provisions should be interpreted broadly and harmoniously. It is trite saying that where there is conflict between two provisions, these should be so interpreted as to give effect to both. Nothing is surplus in a Constitution and no part should be made nugatory. This is well settled. See the observations of this Court in Venkataramana Devaru v. State of Mysore [ 1958 SCR 895 , 918 : AIR 1958 SC 255 ], where Venkatarama Aiyer, J. reiterated that the rule of construction is well settled and where there are in an enactment two provisions which cannot be reconciled with each other, these should be so interpreted that, if possible, effect could be given to both. It, however, appears to us that the expression ‘for the purposes of this Constitution’ in Article 341 as well as in Article 342 do imply that the Scheduled Caste and the Scheduled Tribes so specified would be entitled to enjoy all the constitutional rights that are enjoyable by all the citizens as such. Constitutional right, e.g., it has been argued that right to migration or right to move from one part to another is a right given to all — to Scheduled Castes or Tribes and to non-scheduled castes or tribes. Constitutional right, e.g., it has been argued that right to migration or right to move from one part to another is a right given to all — to Scheduled Castes or Tribes and to non-scheduled castes or tribes. But when a Scheduled Caste or Tribe migrates, there is no inhibition in migrating but when he migrates, he does not and cannot carry any special rights or privileges attributed to him or granted to him in the original State specified for that State or area or part thereof. If that right is not given in the migrated State it does not interfere with his constitutional right of equality or of migration or of carrying on his trade, business or profession. Neither Article 14, 16, 19 nor Article 21 is denuded by migration but he must enjoy those rights in accordance with the law if they are otherwise followed in the place where he migrates. There should be harmonious construction, harmonious in the sense that both parts or all parts of a constitutional provision should be so read that one part does not become nugatory to the other or denuded to the other but all parts must be read in the context in which these are used. It was contended that the only way in which the fundamental rights of the petitioner under Articles 14, 19(1)(d), 19(1)(e) and 19(1)(f) could be given effect to is by construing Article 342 in a manner by which a member of a Scheduled Tribe gets the benefit of that status for the purposes of the Constitution throughout the territory of India. It was submitted that the words “for the purposes of this Constitution” must be given full effect. There is no dispute about that. The words “for the purposes of this Constitution” must mean that a Scheduled Caste so designated must have right under Articles 14, 19(1)(d), 19(1)(e) and 19(1)(f) inasmuch as these are applicable to him in his area where he migrates or where he goes. The expression “in relation to that State” would become nugatory if in all States the special privileges or the rights granted to Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes are carried forward. It will also be inconsistent with the whole purpose of the scheme of reservation. The expression “in relation to that State” would become nugatory if in all States the special privileges or the rights granted to Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes are carried forward. It will also be inconsistent with the whole purpose of the scheme of reservation. In Andhra Pradesh, a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe may require protection because a boy or a child who grows in that area is inhibited or is at disadvantage. In Maharashtra that caste or that tribe may not be so inhibited but other castes or tribes might be. If a boy or a child goes to that atmosphere of Maharashtra as a young boy or a child and goes in a completely different atmosphere or Maharashtra where this inhibition or this disadvantage is not there, then he cannot be said to have that reservation which will denude the children or the people of Maharashtra belonging to any segment of that State who may still require that protection. After all, it has to be borne in mind that the protection is necessary for the disadvantaged castes or tribes of Maharashtra as well as disadvantaged castes or tribes of Andhra Pradesh. Thus, balancing must be done as between those who need protection and those who need no protection, i.e., who belong to advantaged castes or tribes and who do not. Treating the determination under Articles 341 and 342 of the Constitution to be valid for all over the country would be in negation to the very purpose and scheme and language of Article 341 read with Article 15(4) of the Constitution.” 7. In the case of Action Committee on Issue of Caste Certificate to Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes (Supra.), the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under:- “16. We may add that considerations for specifying a particular caste or tribe or class for inclusion in the list of Scheduled Castes/Schedule Tribes or backward classes in a given State would depend on the nature and extent of disadvantages and social hardships suffered by that caste, tribe or class in that State which may be totally non est in another State to which persons belonging thereto may migrate. Coincidentally it may be that a caste or tribe bearing the same nomenclature is specified in two States but the considerations on the basis of which they have been specified may be totally different. Coincidentally it may be that a caste or tribe bearing the same nomenclature is specified in two States but the considerations on the basis of which they have been specified may be totally different. So also the degree of disadvantages of various elements which constitute the input for specification may also be totally different. Therefore, merely because a given caste is specified in State A as a Scheduled Caste does not necessarily mean that if there be another caste bearing the same nomenclature in another State the person belonging to the former would be entitled to the rights, privileges and benefits admissible to a member of the Scheduled Caste of the latter State “for the purposes of this Constitution”. This is an aspect which has to be kept in mind and which was very much in the minds of the Constitution-makers as is evident from the choice of language of Articles 341 and 342 of the Constitution. That is why in answer to a question by Mr Jaipal Singh, Dr Ambedkar answered as under: “He asked me another question and it was this. Supposing a member of a Scheduled Tribe living in a tribal area migrates to another part of the territory of India, which is outside both the scheduled area and the tribal area, will he be able to claim from the local Government, within whose jurisdiction he may be residing the same privileges which he would be entitled to when he is residing within the scheduled area or within the tribal area? It is a difficult question for me to answer. If that matter is agitated in quarters where a decision on a matter like this would lie, we would certainly be able to give some answer to the question in the form of some clause in this Constitution. But so far as the present Constitution stands, a member of a Scheduled Tribe going outside the scheduled area or tribal area would certainly not be entitled to carry with him the privileges that he is entitled to when he is residing in a scheduled area or a tribal area. But so far as the present Constitution stands, a member of a Scheduled Tribe going outside the scheduled area or tribal area would certainly not be entitled to carry with him the privileges that he is entitled to when he is residing in a scheduled area or a tribal area. So far as I can see, it will be practicably impossible to enforce the provisions that apply to tribal areas or scheduled areas, in areas other than those which are covered by them….” Relying on this statement the Constitution Bench ruled that the petitioner was not entitled to admission to the medical college on the basis that he belonged to a Scheduled Tribe in the State of his origin.” 8. Relying on the said Constitution Bench judgments, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ranjana Kumari Vs. State of Uttarakhand & Ors., reported in (2019)15 SCC 664 , has reiterated 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 said judgment is quoted hereunder:- “1. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the relevant material. 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 recognised 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 [Ranjana Kumari v. State of Uttaranchal, 2011 SCC OnLine Utt 1455] the claim, the appellant is in appeal before us. 4. Two Constitution Bench judgments of this Court in Marri Chandra Shekhar Rao v. Seth G.S. Medical College, (1990) 3 SCC 130 and Action Committee on Issue of Caste Certificate to SCs/STs v. Union of India, (1994) 5 SCC 244 have taken the view that merely because in the migrant State the same caste is recognised as Scheduled Caste, the migrant cannot be recognised 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 and Action Committee. 5. We, therefore, find no error in the order of the High Court to justify any interference. The appeal is accordingly dismissed.” 9. It would thus be evident that in the aforesaid case also, the appellant, who belonged to Valmiki caste (Scheduled Caste) of the State of Punjab, married to a person belonging to Valmiki caste of Uttarakhand State and migrated to that State. Irrespective of the fact that in the State of Uttarakhand, Valmiki caste is also recognized as Scheduled Caste, she was not made entitled to get the benefit of reservation of Valmiki caste in the State of Uttarakhand and the said appeal was accordingly dismissed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. 10. The present case is also similar to that of Ranjana Kumari (Supra.). The petitioner belongs to Scheduled Tribe of State of Chhatisgarh and after her marriage with Narayan Oraon, who also belongs to Scheduled Tribe of the State of Jharkhand, she has settled here. Since the original caste status of the petitioner in the original State i.e. Chhatisgarh is to be reckoned for providing the benefit of reservation, she is not entitled to get the said benefit after migrating to the State of Jharkhand on marriage. 11. Hence, this Court does not see any illegality in letter no.14 dated 10th January, 2019, letter no.14 dated 25th February, 2022 (paragraph no.10) issued by the Department of Personnel, Administrative Reforms and Rajbhasha, Government of Jharkhand as well as the order dated 5th May, 2022 passed by the Returning Officer. The writ petition being devoid of merit is, accordingly, dismissed. 12. At this stage, Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that one Rekha Bai Nagesia of Chatakpur Panchayat, Mahuadanr, Latehar has also migrated from other State to the State of Jharkhand, however, she has contested and has been elected twice as reserved category candidate for the post of Mukhiya of Chatakpur Panchayat, Mahuadanr, Latehar and, therefore, the petitioner has been discriminated by the respondent authorities. 13. This Court of the view that the petitioner cannot claim negative equity under writ jurisdiction of this Court. Otherwise also, she has also not specifically mentioned in the writ petition regarding caste status of said Rekha Bai Nagesia. 13. This Court of the view that the petitioner cannot claim negative equity under writ jurisdiction of this Court. Otherwise also, she has also not specifically mentioned in the writ petition regarding caste status of said Rekha Bai Nagesia. She has not even been arrayed in the present writ petition. Therefore, this Court does not wish to make any observation on the said aspect. It is for the concerned authorities to look into the said issue.