JUDGMENT : Rajesh Shankar, J. The present writ petition has been filed for quashing letter no. 5034 dated 05.10.2018 and letter no. 4909 dated 04.10.2018 whereby the claim of the petitioners for reservation under ‘Scheduled Caste’ category in “India Reserve Battalion General Constable Competitive Examination-2017” conducted by the Jharkhand Staff Selection Commission (JSSC) pursuant to Advertisement No. 08/2017, has been repudiated. Further prayer has been made for quashing the final merit list declared vide result dated 15.02.2019 by the respondent-JSSC in connection with Advertisement No. 08/2017 and for considering the petitioners’ case to appoint them on the advertised posts. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that Advertisement No. 08/2017 was published by the JSSC for recruitment on the post of General Constable in India Reserve Battalion under the Department of Home, Jail and Disaster Management Department, Government of Jharkhand through “India Reserve Battalion General Constable Competitive Examination-2017” The petitioners applied for the said post under ‘Scheduled Caste’ category enclosing their Scheduled Caste certificates along with the application forms. They appeared in the said examination held in the month of December, 2017 and were declared successful. Subsequently, they also qualified in physical as well as medical test. Thereafter, the petitioners were called for verification of documents wherein they appeared and produced their documents including their caste certificates of ‘Scheduled Caste’ category endorsed by the competent authority. However, their names were not included in the final merit list published by the respondent authorities. 3. It is further submitted that letter no. 5034 dated 05.10.2018 and letter no. 4909 dated 04.10.2018 were issued to the petitioner nos. 1 and 2 respectively by the Controller of Examination, JSSC (the respondent no.4) informing that the caste certificates submitted by them were issued in the names and addresses of their husbands and accordingly, they were directed to submit the caste certificates issued in the names and addresses of their fathers. The petitioners appeared before the respondents on the specified dates and produced the caste certificates issued in the name of their fathers, however the same were not considered by the respondent-JSSC. 4. The petitioners appeared before the respondents on the specified dates and produced the caste certificates issued in the name of their fathers, however the same were not considered by the respondent-JSSC. 4. It is also submitted that the issuance of the caste certificates to the petitioners based on the name and address of their husband has no bearing on their category to which they belong if the caste of their husband and father is same, rather the status of any individual belonging to any particular category is acquired by virtue of birth. The petitioners have secured more marks than the last selected candidate under their category, however the respondents have arbitrarily not selected them in the final merit list. 5. Mr. Sanjoy Piprawall, learned counsel for the respondent nos. 3 and 4, submits that as per Clause 8(III)(i) of the brochure (Advertisement No. 08/2017) of the said exam, the candidates belonging to the categories of ‘Scheduled Caste’ and ‘Scheduled Tribe’ were required to submit their caste certificates in the ‘Format-I’ as prescribed at ‘Proforma-I’ of the said brochure issued either by the Deputy Commissioner or the Sub-Divisional Officer but not below the rank of the Sub-Divisional Officer. It was also clarified that caste certificates issued by other authority or in other format were not valid for extending the benefit of reservation. 6. It is further submitted that Clause 8(III)(iv) of the brochure mandated that the applicants would submit their online application forms only after procuring the requisite caste certificates and would also mention the details of their caste certificates at proper place while submitting the same since the said caste certificates could be demanded by the JSSC at any time for verification. It was also instructed that only those caste certificates would be valid which were issued in prescribed format mentioned in the brochure by the competent authority not below the rank of the Sub-Divisional Officer. Clause-9 of the brochure provided that before submission of online applications, the applicants were required to ensure that they were possessing all the essential qualifications and requisite certificates till last date of submission of application forms. 7. Clause-9 of the brochure provided that before submission of online applications, the applicants were required to ensure that they were possessing all the essential qualifications and requisite certificates till last date of submission of application forms. 7. It is also submitted that the respondent-JSSC in its notice dated 19.09.2018 published for verification of testimonials of the shortlisted candidates, had mentioned in specific terms that only those caste certificates would be accepted which had been issued till the last date of submission of the online application forms a well as had been issued by an officer not below the rank of Sub-Divisional Officer in prescribed format of Proforma-I mentioned in the brochure. 8. Mr. Piprawall further submits that the petitioner no. 1 produced caste certificate bearing no. 21711 dated 11.10.2018 issued by the Circle Officer, Gaya, Bihar in the name of her father after issuance of notice for verification of testimonials which was not valid for extending the benefits of reservation in terms of the advertisement. The petitioner no. 1 had also produced another caste certificate bearing no. JHCC/2017/1139040 dated 29.08.2017 issued by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Hussainabad in her husband’s name which was not valid for extending the benefits of reservation to her in view of the fact that the caste certificate was to be submitted by the candidate issued in the name of her father for claiming the said benefits. 9. It is also submitted that the petitioner no. 2 had produced the caste certificate bearing no. C/14/07702 dated 31.12.2014 issued by the Circle Officer, Kahalgaon, Bhagalpur, Bihar in her father’s name which was not valid for extending the benefits of reservation in terms of provision mentioned in the advertisement. The petitioner no. 2 produced another caste certificate bearing no. JHCC/2017/520834 dated 06.06.2017 which was also not valid for extending the benefits of reservation to her in view of the fact that the same was issued by the Deputy Commissioner, Godda in her husband’s name and for claiming the benefits of reservation, the caste certificate was to be submitted by the candidate issued in the name of her father. Since the petitioners failed to produce valid caste certificates in terms of provision mentioned in the advertisement for claiming the benefits of reservation, show cause notices were issued to them providing another opportunity to submit their respective valid caste certificates. Since the petitioners failed to produce valid caste certificates in terms of provision mentioned in the advertisement for claiming the benefits of reservation, show cause notices were issued to them providing another opportunity to submit their respective valid caste certificates. The petitioners filed reply to the show cause notices, however the same were not found satisfactory. Accordingly, benefits of reservation were not given to the them and their candidatures were considered under the unreserved category. Since the petitioners had secured lesser marks than the marks secured by the last successful candidate under unreserved category, their names were not recommended for appointment on the advertised posts. 10. It is further submitted that the respondent-JSSC published the final result of the successful candidates recommending their names to the State Government for appointment on the post of ‘General Constable’ in India Reserve Battalion and thus, the selection process in pursuance of Advertisement No. 08/2017 has already been completed. 11. It is also submitted that the Government of India, vide instructions as contained in letter no. B.C-16014/1/82-SC & BCD-I dated 18.11.1982 (subsequently substituted vide another letter No. BC-16014/1/82-SC & BCD-I dated 22.02.1985) as well as letter no. 12011/11/94-BCC(C) dated 08.04.1994 and letter no. 12017/1/2002/BCC dated 25.11.2002, all issued to the Chief Secretaries of all State Governments/Union territory Administrations, has clarified that the persons belonging to the category of Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe and Other Backward Class, who have migrated from the State of origin to the some other States for the purpose of seeking education, employment etc., would be deemed to be a Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe & Other Backward Class of the State of their origin and would be entitled to derive benefits from the State of origin and not from the State to which they have migrated. In consonance with the aforesaid letters of the Central Government, the State Government has also issued its own guidelines vide letter nos. 3557 and 9963 dated 18.10.2005 and 20.11.2015 respectively. 12. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record. 13. In consonance with the aforesaid letters of the Central Government, the State Government has also issued its own guidelines vide letter nos. 3557 and 9963 dated 18.10.2005 and 20.11.2015 respectively. 12. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record. 13. Thrust of the argument of learned counsel for the petitioners is that the petitioners had duly qualified in the written, physical and medical test, however their names have not been included in the final merit list issued for appointment on the post of ‘General Constable’ in India Reserve Battalion, whereas the persons who got lesser marks than the petitioners under their category have been included in the merit list. 14. On the contrary, the contention of the respondent-JSSC is that the petitioners were seeking reservation under ‘Scheduled Caste’ category on the basis of their respective caste certificates issued in the name of their husbands who are the residents of the State of Jharkhand and when they were called to submit the caste certificate issued in the name of their fathers, they produced the caste certificate of their father issued from the State of Bihar which were not acceptable for extending the benefits of reservation to them. It has further been contended that the petitioners have been treated as the candidates of ‘general category’ and since they have got lesser marks than the last selected candidate under the said category, their names have not been included in the merit list. 15. Short question that falls for consideration of this Court is as to whether the petitioners who have migrated to the State of Jharkhand from the State of Bihar after their marriage, can claim reservation under the ‘Scheduled Caste’ category in the State of Jharkhand? 16. In the case of Marri Chandra Shekhar Rao Vs. Dean, Seth G.S. Medical College & Others reported in (1990) 3 SCC 130 , the Constitution Bench of 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. 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], 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. 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. 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. 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. 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.” 17. In the case of Action Committee on Issue of Caste Certificate to SCs/STs in the State of Maharashtra & Another Vs. Union of India & Another reported in (1994) 5 SCC 244 , the Constitution Bench of 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. 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. 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. 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.” 18. Relying on the aforesaid 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 treated as a member of ‘Scheduled Caste’ of the migrant State. The relevant part of the said judgment is quoted hereunder: - “9. 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 treated as a member of ‘Scheduled Caste’ of the migrant State. The relevant part of the said judgment is quoted hereunder: - “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.” 19. Thus, the issue is no more res integra that a person, who has migrated to the other State, shall get benefit of reservation only in his/her parent State i.e., the State of origin and not in the migrant State, even though the caste of that person is being given the benefit of reservation in the migrant State. 20. In the present case, the admitted fact is that the fathers of the respective petitioners are the residents of the State of Bihar and thus their parent State is State of Bihar. The petitioners have migrated to the State of Jharkhand after their marriage and hence, in view of the ratio laid down in the aforesaid judgments, the petitioners are not entitled to get the benefits of reservation in the State of Jharkhand. 21. This Court had also an occasion to deal with the similar issue in the case of Pramila Orain Vs. The State of Jharkhand & Others [W.P.(C) No. 4110 of 2022] wherein the petitioner, who was belonging to ‘Oraon’ community, had migrated from the State of Chhatisgarh to the State of Jharkhand after solemnizing her marriage and was claiming benefit of reservation in the State of Jharkhand stating that the tribe namely ‘Oraon’ is also considered as ‘Scheduled Tribe’ in the State of Jharkhand. This court dismissed the writ petition in the light of the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ranjana Kumari (supra.), Marri Chandra Shekhar Rao (supra.) and Action Committee on Issue of Caste Certificate to SCs/STs in the State of Maharashtra (supra.). 22. Learned counsel for the respondent-JSSC has put reliance on the judgment of a co-ordinate Bench of this Court rendered in the cases of Kumari Arti Vs. State of Jharkhand & Others [W.P.(S) No. 6031 of 2019] and Meena Kumari Mardi Vs. The State of Jharkhand & Others [W.P.(S) No. 984 of 2019]. In those cases, the petitioners had migrated to the State of Jharkhand after their marriage and were claiming the benefits of reservation in the State of Jharkhand, however the Bench declined to entertain the writ petitions having relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ranjana Kumari (supra.). 23. In view of the aforesaid discussion, I do not find any reason to entertain the present writ petition and the same is, accordingly, dismissed.