ORDER : Satyen Vaidya, J. By way of instant petition, petitioner has prayed for the grant of following reliefs: (i) That the impugned act of omission and commission of the respondents not considering the candidature of the petitioner for appointment to the post of LT contract basis on batch-wise as SC category candidate in the counselling held on 18.06.2019 and letter dated 04.08.2020 Annexure P-8 treating the petitioner as general category candidate and rejecting the claim of the petitioner as SC category candidate on the basis on notification of 2012, Annexure P-9, may kindly be declared unjust, harsh, illegal, arbitrary, discriminatory, malafide, unconstitutional and against principles of natural justice and legitimate expectation. (ii) That the notification of 2012, Annexure P-9, may kindly be held inapplicable in the case of the petitioner and letter dated 04.08.2020, Annexure P-8, treating the petitioner as general category candidate and rejecting the claim of the petitioner as SC category candidate on the basis on notification of 2012 may kindly be quashed and set-aside. (iii) That the respondents may kindly be directed to consider the candidature of the petitioner for appointment to the post of LT contract basis on batch-wise basis pursuant to the counseling held on 18.06.2019 as SC category candidate and in the event the petitioner is found suitable for appointment, she be offered appointment to the post of LT contract basis on batch-wise basis pursuant to the counselling held on 18.06.2019 as SC category candidate.” 2. The case of petitioner is that her parental house is in State of Punjab. She got married to Sh. Balwinder Pal, a resident of District Una, Himachal Pradesh in the year 2001 and is residing with her husband since then. Petitioner belongs to Scheduled Caste (for short “SC”) category and her husband also belongs to the same category. 3. The name of the petitioner was sponsored by the Employment Exchange to the Department of Education, H.P. in response to requisition for the posts of Language Teacher (for short “LT”) on batch-wise basis. Petitioner appeared for counselling as SC category candidate. The candidature of petitioner was finally rejected by respondent No.3 vide letter dated 4.8.2020 (Annexure P-8). The basis of such rejection was quoted to be the instructions (Annexure P-9) issued in the year 2012. 4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the records of the case. 5. The candidature of petitioner was finally rejected by respondent No.3 vide letter dated 4.8.2020 (Annexure P-8). The basis of such rejection was quoted to be the instructions (Annexure P-9) issued in the year 2012. 4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the records of the case. 5. Petitioner has been denied the benefit of SC category for the purposes of employment in the State of Himachal Pradesh on the sole ground that she was born in the State of Punjab and had acquired the status of SC by virtue of her parents belonging to the said category in the State of Punjab. 6. The issue is no more res integra. This Court in CWP No. 8043 of 2021, titled Subeena Sabri vs. State of H.P. and others, decided on 19.05.2022, formulated a specific question as under: “The question that arises for determination is whether the petitioner by virtue of being married to a person belonging to OBC in Himachal Pradesh or by inclusion of the original caste of petitioner (Ansari) in the list of Other Backward Classes in the State of Himachal Pradesh is entitled for issuance of a certificate of eligibility for reservation of jobs for Other Backward Classes in the State of Himachal Pradesh?” 7. The question so formulated was decided in the following terms: “19. In our considered view, in none of the judgments noticed by the Coordinate Bench of this court while deciding Review Petition No. 47 of 2021, scope for any exception was left. It cannot be overlooked that in all the cases the purpose was to protect the salutary principle enshrined in Articles 341 & 342 of the Constitution of India. To achieve such purpose, Hon’ble Apex Court repeatedly has held that migration for whatsoever reason, from one State to another, cannot be a sufficient ground for claiming benefit of being SC/ST/OBC in the migratee state. The objective criteria for declaration of a particular Caste or Tribe as SC/ST/OBC in one State is the specific level of backwardness, social disparage and economic disadvantages prevalent in such state. The objective criteria for declaration of a particular Caste or Tribe as SC/ST/OBC in one State is the specific level of backwardness, social disparage and economic disadvantages prevalent in such state. Though, one Caste notified as Scheduled Caste/ tribe/ OBC in one State may also find place in the list of notified Scheduled Caste/ Tribe/OBC in the other, but the same has not been held to be sufficient for claiming the benefit in other State by a person after migration for the reason that the degree of disadvantages of various elements which constitute the data for specification may be entirely different. The migrations be it voluntary or involuntary have been taken care of in the judgments passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, as noticed above. Thus, in our considered view, mere grant of a certificate of bonafide resident to a person by the migratee State after her marriage in such State cannot be an exception. The view taken by a Coordinate Bench in Review Petition No. 47 of 2021, titled State of H.P. & others Vs Navin Kumari to that effect, in our understanding, is per incuriam. 20. In the instant case, the facts that petitioner is married in the State of Himachal Pradesh to a person belonging to OBC and even the Caste to which the petitioner belonged in the State of her origin has been declared as a OBC in the State of Himachal Pradesh, cannot be held sufficient to carve out an exception to the mandate of law, as declared by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Marri Chandra Shekhar Rao vs. Deen, Seth G.S. Medical College and others 1990 (3) SCC 130 , Action Committee on issue of Caste Certificate to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes in the State of Maharashtra and another vs. Union of India and others, 1994 (5) SCC 244 and Subhash Chandra and another vs. Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board and others 2009 (15) SCC, 458, Pankaj Kumar vs. State of Jharkhand & others, 2021 SCC (online) SC 616 and Ranjana Kumari Vs State of Uttaranchal 2019 (15) SCC 664 . 21. Question is answered accordingly. 22. In light of above discussion, we find no merit in the instant petition and the same is accordingly dismissed. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.” 8. 21. Question is answered accordingly. 22. In light of above discussion, we find no merit in the instant petition and the same is accordingly dismissed. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.” 8. The facts of the instant case are fully covered by the aforesaid judgment in Subeena Sabri’s case and hence, the petitioner is not entitled to the reliefs claimed. The findings recorded by this Court in Subeena Sabri’s case (supra) will apply mutatis mutandis to the instant case. 9. The petition is accordingly disposed of, so also the pending miscellaneous application(s), if any.