JUDGMENT : Heard learned counsel for the parties. PRAYER 2. Petitioner has approached this Court with a prayer for quashing the Important Notice circulated by Letter No. 7203, Dated 24.12.2020 (Annexure-7), issued under the signature of Examination Controller, Jharkhand Staff Selection Commission, as far as it relates to petitioner at serial no. 25. Further prayer has been made for a direction to the respondents to appoint her to the post of Trained Graduate Teacher in the Government Secondary School pursuant to advertisement of Combined Trained Graduate Teacher Competitive Examination, 2016 in the Scheduled Caste Category. FACTUAL MATRIX 3. According to the petitioner, at the time of her marriage on 30.04.1994, she was residing with her parents at Aurangabad and her husband was residing at Palamau in the unified State of Bihar. Petitioner did her Intermediate in the year 2002 from Jagdish Singh Memorial College, Mango, Jamshedpur. She also did her graduation and post graduation from Jamshedpur Cooperative College, Jamshedpur in the year 2005 and 2007 respectively in the subject History. Thereafter, she did her B.Ed. from Karim City College, Jamshedpur in the year 2009. 4. An advertisement for appointment to the post of Trained Graduate Teachers in the Government Secondary Schools of State of Jharkhand was published by the Jharkhand Staff Selection Commission. Clause 8 of the advertisement stipulates that the reservation would be extended to those candidates only who are the residents of the State of Jharkhand and the Caste Certificate must be issued after 02.06.2016. A Circular was issued by the Personnel, Administrative Reforms and Rajbhasha Department, Government of Jharkhand vide Letter No. 235, Anu. Dated 10.01.2019 directing interalia to all the concerned not to give reservation to those female candidates who have migrated to the State of Jharkhand on account of their marriage. Though the petitioner appeared in the written examination and was declared qualified and thereafter called for certificate verification, but in light of Letter No. 7203, dated 24.12.2020, her candidature in Scheduled Caste category was rejected on the ground of non-submission of valid caste certificate. Being aggrieved, petitioner has knocked door of this Court. SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER 5. Mr. Manoj Tandon assisted by Ms. Neha Bhardwaj, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner strenuously urges that the Circular issued vide Letter No. 235, Anu. Being aggrieved, petitioner has knocked door of this Court. SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER 5. Mr. Manoj Tandon assisted by Ms. Neha Bhardwaj, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner strenuously urges that the Circular issued vide Letter No. 235, Anu. Dated 10.01.2019 directing all the concerned not to give reservation to those who have migrated to the State of Jharkhand in view of marriage, has changed the rule midway the selection process, which is not permitted in the eyes of law. Learned counsel further urges that petitioner was married in the year 1994 i.e. before bifurcation of the State and did her entire higher education in the State of Jharkhand. At the time of marriage in the year 1994, the districts of Palamau and Aurangabad were in one and the same State i.e. United State of Bihar. Petitioner produced valid caste certificate and local resident certificate issued by the competent authority of Palamau district strictly in terms of the advertisement. The valid caste certificate and local resident certificate were issued by the competent authority in terms of advertisement but in view of impugned decision of the Government, the entire selection process has been changed in the mid-way, which is not permissible in the eyes of law. Any change midway the selection process, either by way of circular or notice not to give reservation to such candidates is nothing but rewriting the terms and conditions of the advertisement in question. It is well settled that rule of selection process cannot be changed midway. The advertisement was issued in the year 2016. Any instruction issued in the year 2018 or 2019 from Personnel, Administrative Reforms and Rajbhasha Department, would not be applicable to the advertisement, which was issued prior to that. Petitioner had also produced the local residential certificate of Jharkhand valid for all purposes as contained in Certificate No. JHRC/2016/ 788776, issued on 18.12.2016, certifying that petitioner is a permanent resident of the State of Jharkhand, the respondent has no power to refuse to consider case of the petitioner in the scheduled caste category in view of the Circular which was issued after the last date fixed by the Commission for filling up of the application form. The petitioner belongs to a caste which comes under Scheduled Caste in the State of Bihar as also in the State of Jharkhand and as such respondents ought to have considered her case for appointment under the Scheduled Caste Category. 6. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner should not be punished for the delay and fault committed on part of the Commission in not concluding recruitment process within a reasonable time period. Petitioner has been made to suffer only because recruitment process has been lingered by the Commission due to their own lackadaisical and lethargic approach. Learned counsel further argues that matter relating to issuance of Caste Certificate on the basis of father’s name came into picture only after the Circular dated 10.01.2019 and not prior to that as the caste certificate issued on the basis of husband of a married woman was also valid. Petitioner has a good case and a direction may be passed for consideration of case of the petitioner for her appointment under the reserved category. SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENTS 7. Per contra, counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondents – JSSC as also on behalf of the State. 8. Mr. Sanjay Piprawal assisted by Mr. Prince Kumar and Rakesh Ranjan, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Jharkhand Staff Selection Commission, justifying the impugned order submits that caste certificate of the petitioner was issued on the basis of her husband’s name and not in the name of her father and as such it was not possible to ascertain whether petitioner originally belonged to the Scheduled Caste Category of the State or not. After show-cause issued to the petitioner, she submitted her caste certificate issued by the Sub Divisional Officer, Aurangabad, Bihar but the same is not valid for extending benefits of reservation to her as the same has been issued by the authority of the State of Bihar. The benefits of reservation can be extended only to the local resident of the State and not the resident of another State. Learned counsel further submits that in view of letter no. 235, dated 10.01.2019, issued by the Department of Personnel, administrative Reforms and Rajbhasha, Government of Jharkhand, the reserved category female candidates migrating from any other State after her marriage is not entitled to get benefits of reservation in the migrated State. Learned counsel further submits that in view of letter no. 235, dated 10.01.2019, issued by the Department of Personnel, administrative Reforms and Rajbhasha, Government of Jharkhand, the reserved category female candidates migrating from any other State after her marriage is not entitled to get benefits of reservation in the migrated State. Petitioner has secured less marks than the last successful category candidate in unreserved category for opted district and subject and as such she was not declared successful for appointment. Learned counsel further argues that case of the petitioner was also considered in light of Judgment and order passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Soni Kumari but she ranked lower than the last selected candidate under un-reserved category and as such her name has not been included in the State wise result. 9. Mr. Rajesh Kumar Jha, AC to Sr. SC-II appearing on behalf of the State submits that vide letter no. BC-16014/1/ 82-SC & BCD-1, dated 22.02.1985 (Annexure-A to the counter affidavit), under para-2 of the Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India had already clarified that the persons migrating to a new State, cannot be granted the benefits of the State from which he has migrated. Similar view has been reiterated in letter no. 12017/2/2018 – SCD (R.L.Cell), by Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment, Government of India, dated 22.02.2018, which has been brought on record vide Annexure-B to the counter affidavit. Learned counsel further submits that in view of Constitution Bench Judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the case of Ranjana Kumari Vs. State of Uttarakhand and others reported in (2019) 15 SCC 664 , the Department of Personnel, Administrative Reforms and Rajbhasha, Department of Jharkhand has published letter no. 14/ VVP – 10 – 02/2018 (Khand II) Ka 235, Dated 10.01.2019, clarifying the status of reservation for women who have migrated to Jharkhand after their marriage and reservation can only be claimed in the State of their origin. Drawing attention towards Annexure-D to the counter affidavit, learned counsel submits that the condition for issuance of caste certification for reservation is very specific and the caste certificate can be issued on the basis of residential and social status of the parents i.e. father and mother only and not the husband. FINDINGS OF THE COURT 10. Drawing attention towards Annexure-D to the counter affidavit, learned counsel submits that the condition for issuance of caste certification for reservation is very specific and the caste certificate can be issued on the basis of residential and social status of the parents i.e. father and mother only and not the husband. FINDINGS OF THE COURT 10. From the facts, submission and legal proposition brought before this Court by both the sides, the important points to be discussed in this writ petition are: (I) The letter no. BC-16014/1/ 82-SC & BCD-1, dated 22.02.1985, under para-2 of the Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India, has already clarified that the persons migrating to a new State cannot be granted benefits of the State from which he has migrated. Said clause 2 reads as under: “2. It is also clarified that a Scheduled Caste/ tribe persons who has migrated from the State of origin to some other State for the purpose of seeking education, employment, etc. will be deemed to be a Scheduled Caste/ tribe of the State of his origin and will be entitled to derive benefits from the State of origin and not from the State to which he has migrated.” (II) Similar view has been reiterated in letter no. 12017/2/2018 – SCD (R.L.Cell), by Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment, Government of India, dated 22.02.2018, which reads as under: “It was clarified that the Scheduled Caste/ Scheduled Tribe person on migration from the State of his/her origin to another State will not lose his/her status as Scheduled Caste/ Scheduled Tribes, but he/she will be entitled to the concessions/ benefits admissible to the Scheduled Castes/ Scheduled Tribes from the State of his/her origin and not from the State where he/she has migrated.” (III) The Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the case of Ranjana Kumari Vs. State of Uttarakhand and others reported in (2019) 15 SCC 664 , has dealt with the similar issue and has opined that the women can claim reservation from her State of origin and not from the State where she has migrated. Hon’ble Apex Court has held 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”. (IV) From the letter no. Hon’ble Apex Court has held 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”. (IV) From the letter no. 14/JA NI – 03 – 13/ 2015/ Ka 1754, Dated 25.02.2019, it appears that the Caste Certificate can only be issued on the basis of parents and not the husband. In the instant case, petitioner’s parents belong to the State of Bihar and as such rightly the caste certificate issued from State of Bihar is applicable to the petitioner but she cannot claim for any benefits of reservation in the State of Jharkhand. (V) In the case of Marri Chandra Vs. Dean, SGS Medical College and others reported in (1990) 3 SCC 130 , it has clearly been held that the migration for whatsoever reasons from one State to another, cannot be a sufficient ground for claiming the benefits of SC, ST and OBC in the migratory 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 State, but the same has not been held to be sufficient for claiming the benefits in other State by a person after migration even through marriage. Para-10 of the said Judgment reads as under: “10. It has, however, to be borne in mind that a man does not cease to belong to his caste by migration to a better or more socially free and liberal atmosphere. But if sufficiently long time is spent in socially advanced area then the inhibitions and handicaps suffered by belonging to a socially disadvantageous community do not continue and the natural talent of a man or a woman or a boy or girl gets full scope to flourish. These, however, are problems of social adjustment i.e. how far protection has to be given to a certain segment of socially disadvantaged community and for how long to become equal with others is a matter of delicate social adjustment. These, however, are problems of social adjustment i.e. how far protection has to be given to a certain segment of socially disadvantaged community and for how long to become equal with others is a matter of delicate social adjustment. These must be so balanced in the mosaic of the country's integrity that no section or community should cause detriment or discontentment to other community or part of community or section. Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes belonging to a particular area of the country must be given protection so long as and to the extent they are entitled in order to become equal with others. But equally those who go to other areas should also ensure that they make way for the disadvantaged and disabled of that part of the community who suffer from disabilities in those areas. In other words, Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes say of Andhra Pradesh do require necessary protection as balanced between other communities. But equally the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes say of Maharashtra in the instant case, do require protection in the State of Maharashtra, which will have to be in balance to other communities. This must be the basic approach to the problem. If one bears this basic approach in mind, then the determination of the controversy in the instant case does not become difficult. For the purpose of understanding the problem, it may be worthwhile to refer to the Report of the Joint Committee of the Parliament on the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Amendment) Order Bill, 1967. It may also be worthwhile to refer to the proceedings of the Constituent Assembly on September 17, 1949 dealing with draft Articles 303 and 304, which later on became Articles 341 and 342 respectively. Dr B.R. Ambedkar moving the Resolution observed as follows: “That after Article 300, the following articles be inserted: 300-A. (1) The President may, after consultation with the Governor or Ruler of a State, by public notification specify the castes, races or tribes or parts of or groups within castes races or tribes, which shall for purposes of this Constitution be deemed to be Scheduled Castes in relation to the State. (2) Parliament may by law include in or exclude from the list of Scheduled Castes specified in a notification issued by the President under clause (1) of this article any caste, race or tribe or part of or group within any caste, race or tribe, but save as aforesaid a notification issued under the said clause shall not be varied by any subsequent notification. 300-B. (1) The President may after consultation with the Governor or Ruler of a State, by public notification specify the tribes or tribal communities or parts of or groups within tribes or tribal communities which shall for purposes of this Constitution be deemed to be Scheduled Tribes in relation to that State. (2) Parliament may by law include in or exclude from the list of Scheduled Tribes specified in a notification issued by the President under clause (1) of this article any tribe or tribal community or part of or group within any tribe or tribal community but save as aforesaid a notification issued under the said clause shall not be varied by any subsequent notification.” The object of these two articles, as I stated, was to eliminate the necessity of burdening the Constitution with long lists of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. It is now proposed that the President, in consultation with the Governor or Ruler of a State should have the power to issue a general notification in the gazette specifying all the castes and tribes or groups thereof deemed to be Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes for the purposes of the privileges which have been defined for them in the Constitution. The only limitation that has been imposed is this: that once a notification has been issued by the President, which, undoubtedly, he will be issuing in consultation with and on the advice of the government of each State, thereafter, if any elimination was to be made from the list so notified or any addition was to be made, that must be made by Parliament and not by the President. The object is to eliminate any kind of political factors having a play in the matter of the disturbance in the Schedule so published by the President.” (VI) In the Judgment passed in the case of Pramila Orain Vs. The object is to eliminate any kind of political factors having a play in the matter of the disturbance in the Schedule so published by the President.” (VI) In the Judgment passed in the case of Pramila Orain Vs. The State of Jharkhand in W.P.(C) No. 4110 of 2022, it has been observed that there is no illegality in the letters issued by the Department of Personnel, Administrative Reforms and Rajbhasha, Government of Jharkhand relating to issuance of Caste Certificate. (VII) This Court, while dealing with similar issue in the case of Kumari Arti Vs. State of Jharkhand and others in W.P.(S) No. 6031 of 2019, has considered entire matters discussed hereinabove and rejected claim of the petitioner. This Court cannot go beyond the observations made in the said writ petition. 11. From the discussions made hereinabove, there is no question regarding the caste status of the petitioner who belongs to the Scheduled Caste community and is entitled for the benefits under the said category, but within the State of Bihar from where the Caste Certificate was issued to her on the basis of her father’s name. The Caste Certificates are issued as per the residential and social status of the parents and not the husband and the respondents have rightly asked for the Caste Certificate issued as per residential status of her father. The moment petitioner migrated to the State of Jharkhand, whether on being married or otherwise, she did not bring with her the right that she acquired in the State of Bihar and she did not acquire her right to be considered under the reserved category as was applicable to her in the State of Bihar. 12. As a cumulative effect of the aforesaid rules, guidelines and judicial pronouncement, there is no scope of any interference with the decision of the respondents that candidature of the petitioner was treated as unreserved category for the said post on the ground that petitioner failed to submit a valid caste certificate for extending the benefits of reservation in the State of Jharkhand in terms of advertisement. 13. Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed.