JUDGMENT : 1. By way of filing the instant writ petition, the petitioner has assailed legality and validity of order dated 23.10.2013, whereby his candidature for the post of Teacher Grade-III has been rejected by the respondents. She has further prayed for a direction against the respondents to appoint her on the post of Teacher Grade-III pursuant to selection list prepared by the respondents by treating her eligible candidate under SBC women category. 2. The facts, which are relevant for the purpose of adjudication of the instant writ petition, are that the petitioner claims to posses qualification of Senior Secondary, B.A., M.A., B.Ed. and also claim herself to be treating of Special Backward Class on the basis of Caste certificate issued by Tehsildar, Jhalrapatan dated 13.09.2010 and caste certificate issued by Section Officer Gadarwara District Madhya Pradesh dated 20.03.2010. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that one advertisement 20.02.2012 was issued by Zila Parishad, Jhalawar. As per advertisement, there were total 224 vacancies for the post of Teacher Grade-III (Level-1) and 1465 vacancies for Teacher Grade-III (Level-2). It was also prescribed in the advertisement that reservation shall be admissible for the respective categories in accordance with the Rules. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that being eligible the petitioner applied pursuant to aforesaid advertisement, After undergoing the process she secured total 114.78 marks in the recruitment examination. As per the petitioner, her marks were more than cut of marks declared for SBC category, therefore, she was entitled to be appointed pursuant to aforesaid advertisement. However, in arbitrary manner, her candidature has been rejected by the respondents vide letter dated 23.10.2013 only on the ground that as per terms and conditions of the Advertisement a woman candidate applying in the category of Backward Class/Special Backward Class must submit the application on the basis of residence of her father, for which she was required to submit latest certificate issued by the competent authority, which should not be older than six months from the date of advertisement, failing which benefit of reservation shall not be admissible. Caste certificate issued on the basis of details of husband of female candidate shall not be admissible. Caste certificate issued on the basis of details of husband of female candidate shall not be admissible. Since, as the certificate produced by the petitioner with the details of her father relates to M.P. State and the caste certificate supplied with the details of her husband, although, belongs to Rajasthan State, yet the same was not admissible. Under such circumstances, she would be treated a candidate from Unreserved General Category and cut of marks of Unreserved Category as declared by the respondents were 145.89. Hence, the petitioner has secured lesser marks than the cut of marks of general category, therefore, shall not be entitled for selection. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the respondents have misread the condition with regard to reservation as prescribed in the advertisement. All the sub-clauses of condition No.8, which relates to reservation are required to be read in entirety and conjoint reading of all the sub-clause would make it clear that in case the candidate is bonafide resident of the State of Rajasthan only then she would be treated as a reserved category candidate irrespective of belonging to any reserved category such as SC, ST, OBC and SBC. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has indicated that she also possesses bonafide resident certificate issued by Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Jhalawar (Rajasthan), therefore, in view of sub-clause (vi) of Clause 8 she was entitled to be treated as reserved category candidates from SBC category and on account of getting higher marks i.e. cut of marks in such category, she has a legitimate right to be appointed. The action of the respondents is prejudicing her rights and the rejection order is liable to be quashed and set aside and she is entitled for appointment. 6. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for respondents has drawn the attention of this Court to sub-clause-(i) of Clause-8 of the advertisement, which makes it clear that all the candidates, irrespective of belonging to any of the reserved category, can apply as a general category candidate. 6. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for respondents has drawn the attention of this Court to sub-clause-(i) of Clause-8 of the advertisement, which makes it clear that all the candidates, irrespective of belonging to any of the reserved category, can apply as a general category candidate. Learned counsel has also pointed out that as per explanation appended to sub-clause (v) of Clause 8 of the advertisement, which lays down that as regards to the female candidate belonging to OBC/SBC is concerned, there was a specific condition that for making application under the category of OBC/SBC of the female candidate was required to produce latest certificate, not older than six months, containing name of her father, his place of residence as well as income and other details and it was also specified that certificate issued with the details of her husband shall not be acceptable. 7. Learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that such conditions were explicitly clear in the advertisement, yet ignoring such conditions the petitioner had submitted that the application form and has relied upon two caste certificates issued by the authorities from State of Rajasthan and State of Madhya Pradesh Certificate containing details of her father has been issued by the authority from M.P. State, which is not admissible for the reason that firstly, it becomes clear from perusal of such certificate that father of the petitioner belongs to M.P. State and on the basis of which petitioner cannot be treated either OBC/SBC candidate in the State of Rajasthan. Secondly, so far as the other certificate details dated 13.09.2010 issued by Tehsildar Jhalrapatan (Rajasthan) is concerned, the same contains details of husband of the petitioner, which as per the advertisement, was not entertenable and the petitioner could not be treated as SBC category candidate on the basis of aforesaid two certificates. Therefore, her candidature was considered against general category, where she could not secure sufficient marks. As per learned counsel for the respondents, the writ petition filed by the petitioner is misconceived and is liable to be rejected. 8. Learned counsel has also objected that the petitioner has also not challenged the conditions contained in the advertisement therefore, no relief as such can be granted to her. 9. As per learned counsel for the respondents, the writ petition filed by the petitioner is misconceived and is liable to be rejected. 8. Learned counsel has also objected that the petitioner has also not challenged the conditions contained in the advertisement therefore, no relief as such can be granted to her. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment of Mukesh Kumari vs. State of Rajasthan delivered by this Court in SBCWP No. 12008/2015, decided on 17.02.2016, in which following observations have been made:- “7. The insistence of the respondents that the Certificate produced cannot be taken into consideration, since clause 4(iv) specifies that only those married women would be given the benefit of reservation in case their father’s name/residence was reflected in the Certificate and had been issued by the Government of Rajasthan, cannot be sustained specifically when a woman who has migrated from another State resides with her husband in Rajasthan and for all purposes, Rajasthan becomes her domicile. 8. Clause 4(iv) of the Advertisement dated 26.02.2013 reads as under:- Meaning thereby a married woman belonging to Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe category would be given the benefit of reservation on production of a Certificate issued by the Government of Rajasthan which should reflect that name of her father/residence. In the instance case, the petitioner is a married woman who initially lived in a different State and after marriage had settled in Rajasthan. Therefore, this stipulation cannot be made strictly applicable in the case of a married woman who after marriage and and migration becomes a domicile of the State of Rajasthan. It is not feasible for the Tehsildar of the area concerned, (i.e. in the State of Rajasthan) to issue a certificate pertaining to woman’s caste reflecting name of her father since it would then necessarily be prior to her marriage. Caste is by birth and in case she is born to a particular caste, after migration she would remain her caste even after her marriage. The circulars relied upon do not pertain to a situation of where a reserved category person marries and settles in Rajasthan. Thus the reliance of circulars is of no relevance to the case in hand. 9. In D.B. Civil Special Appeal (W) No. 142/2009 Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Ajmer v. Rekha Soni and Anr. The circulars relied upon do not pertain to a situation of where a reserved category person marries and settles in Rajasthan. Thus the reliance of circulars is of no relevance to the case in hand. 9. In D.B. Civil Special Appeal (W) No. 142/2009 Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Ajmer v. Rekha Soni and Anr. Decided on 1.2.2010, the Division Bench upheld the order passed by learned Single Judge in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6862/2007-Rekha Soni v. State of Rajasthan and Anr. holding that the candidates who were originally, before marriage, born in the OBC category and that the same OBC category was available in the State of Rajasthan as well and if the State of Rajasthan had issued certificate to this effect, the candidature could not be rejected merely on account of the fact that the candidate was not born in the State of Rajasthan and it would not effect her status of OBC in the State. 10. In Mrs. Sahendra Bai and Ors. vs. R.P.S.C. and Anr. 2008 (4) WLC (Raj.) 252, the question came up for consideration, as to whether a married woman who belongs to a State other than the State of Rajasthan prior to her marriage and who was getting the reservation in her State, is entitled to get benefit of reservation for the purpose of getting employment in the State of Rajasthan. The learned Single Judge, after considering several judgments, held that in case of a married lady, if she is treated in a particular reserved category before her marriage and her caste is treated to be in the reserved category, even in the State where she has migrated by virtue of her marriage, there is no reason to deny her the benefit of reservation. Bunch of the writ petitions laid by Mrs. Sahendra Bai and Ors. Bunch of the writ petitions laid by Mrs. Sahendra Bai and Ors. came to be disposed of by issuance of a direction to the State authorities to process the application of the petitioners about genuineness of the Certificate issued and also held that in case before her marriage, she was getting the benefit of reservation in a particular reserved category in her parental State, after her marriage, in case her caste is treated to be in different reserved category in the State of Rajasthan, in such case, the certificate issued by the authorities of the State of Rajasthan shall have binding effect, as now the petitioner can be said to be permanent residence of the State of Rajasthan by virtue of marriage. 11. In the present case, the petitioner had produced a caste certificate with her husbands name issued by the State of Rajasthan after due verification by the Tehsildar Rewadi. Thus by placing reliance upon the judgment referred to above, it is held that the petitioner who was belonging to the Scheduled Caste before her marriage and subsequently, also had a certificate issued by the Tehsildar at Bhadara is entitled to be considered in the Scheduled caste category and the State acted arbitrarily in rejecting her candidature. 12. Resultantly, the above noted writ petition is allowed and the respondents are directed to consider the case of the petitioner in the Scheduled Caste Category as per her merit and in case her name finds place in merit, appointment be offered to her.” 10. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the judgment of this Court in the case of Mrs. Sahendra Bai and Ors. vs. R.P.S.C. and Anr. reported in 2008 (4) WLC 252 which reads as under:- “25. So far as the controversy involved in the present bunch of writ petitions is concerned, following points are as such not in dispute: (i) That the petitioners, before their marriage, were residing in the States other than the State of Rajasthan. (ii) That each of the petitioner has married in the State of Rajasthan and after their marriage they have migrated to the State of Rajasthan and are residing with their respective husband and other family members in the State of Rajasthan and in each of the case, the husband of the petitioners is belonging to reserved category i.e. SC/ST/OBC in the State of Rajasthan. (iii) That the authorities of the State of Rajasthan have issued caste certificates in favour of the petitioners treating them to be in reservation category in the State of Rajasthan and in such certificates, names of the husbands of the petitioners have been mentioned. (iv) That in most of the present writ petitions, the petitioners before their marriage also belonged to reserved category in their parental State and even after their marriage they have been continued to be treated in reserved category as their husbands also belong to reservation category. However, in some writ petitions the petitioners are belonging to a caste, which is not treated in the reserved category in their parental State. 26. The question, therefore which requires consideration is whether the petitioners who belonged to reserved category in their parental States prior to their marriage can still be considered in the reserved category in the State of Rajasthan by virtue of their marriage if their respective husbands belong to reserved category in the State of Rajasthan, even though such petitioners have not born in the State of Rajasthan. 27. So far as the facts of the present cases are concerned, it is required to be noted that most of the petitioners belonged to reserved category in their respective parental States before their marriage. Under normal circumstances, if a lady is not getting the benefit of reservation in her parental State, then simply because husband of such lady belongs to reserved category, she is not entitled to get the benefit of reservation in other State, where her husband is residing. However, so far as the present cases are concerned, except some cases, in most of the cases, the petitioners were treated in the reserved category in their parental State and even after marriage, the caste to which they belong is treated to be in reserved category in the State of Rajasthan and even competent authorities of the State have granted caste certificates to the petitioners treating them in reserved category in the State of Rajasthan and in my view, for the purpose of employment, no exception can be made as suggested by learned counsel Mr. Kumawat. If the argument of Mr. Kumawat. If the argument of Mr. Kumawat is to be accepted, the result would be that even if a particular lady candidate is belonging to reserved category both in her parental State before her marriage and after her marriage in the State where she has migrated by virtue of her marriage, such lady will automatically lose the protection of reservation only by virtue of her marriage in other State. It may be different thing that a married lady who was not getting the benefit of reservation in her parental State before her marriage, cannot get the benefit of reservation in other State only by virtue of her marriage, but in most of the present cases, the petitioners were being treated to be in reserved category in their parental State and even after their marriage, they have been issued caste certificates by the State Authorities by examining income and other criteria, treating them to be belonging to reserved category in the State of Rajasthan. Considering the aforesaid aspect, in my view, the RPSC cannot sit in appeal over such certificates and in that view of the matter, those petitioners, who were belonging to reserved category in their parental State before their marriage and whose caste after their marriage is also failing in the reserved category even in the State of Rajasthan, are entitled to get the benefit of reservation in their parental State of Rajasthan, are entitled to get the benefit of reservation in their parental State before their marriage cannot get the benefit of reservation in the State of Rajasthan simply by virtue of marriage to a husband belonging to reserved category in the State of Rajasthan. 28. Considering the aforesaid case laws on the subject and considering the facts of the present matters, in my view, the RPSC cannot say that even though certificates issued by the State Authorities may be good for contesting elections or for any other purpose, but the same cannot be said to be applicable for getting public employment. It cannot be said that simply because the petitioners are married, they lose the protection of reservation altogether even though they were belonging to as particular reserved category before their marriage and even after their marriage their caste falls under reserved category in the State of Rajasthan. It cannot be said that simply because the petitioners are married, they lose the protection of reservation altogether even though they were belonging to as particular reserved category before their marriage and even after their marriage their caste falls under reserved category in the State of Rajasthan. In any case, when the authorities of State of Rajasthan have already granted certificate treating such candidates to be in reserved category, unless such certificates are set aside in appropriate manner, they are binding and are required to be acted upon. The RPSC cannot sit in appeal over such certificates and if they do so, they would be acting in the excess of their powers. It is not the constitutional mandate that a person belonging to a particular reserved category in one State can never get the benefit of reservation in other State. This Court is dealing with the question about married woman who have now permanently settled in the State of Rajasthan for all times to come and they can be said to be permanent residents of the State of Rajasthan for all practical purposes. It is as such not in dispute that the petitioners are now permanently residing in the State of Rajasthan as certain documentary evidence is also placed on record in this behalf and in many cases even their names have also been enrolled in the Voters List, therefore, it cannot be said that simply because they have settled in the State of Rajasthan by virtue of their marriage, they cannot be said to be permanent residents of the State of Rajasthan. However, it is no doubt true that simply by way of migration or transfer from one State to other a person cannot get the benefit of reservation, which he might be getting in his/her parental State. However, in the case of a married lady, if she was treated in a particular reserved category before her marriage and her caste or tribe is treated to be in the reserved category even in the State where she has migrated by virtue of her marriage, there is no reason to deny her the benefit of reservation. However, in the case of a married lady, if she was treated in a particular reserved category before her marriage and her caste or tribe is treated to be in the reserved category even in the State where she has migrated by virtue of her marriage, there is no reason to deny her the benefit of reservation. Considering the said aspect, it can be said that the petitioners are qualified to be considered in their respective reserved category (SC/ST/OBC) on the basis of the certificates issued by the authorities of the State in this behalf by treating them to be permanent residents of the State of Rajasthan. 29. Considering the aforesaid aspect, all these writ petitions are partly allowed and the respondent- RPSC is directed to process the application of each of the petitioners on its own merits and decide the case of each of the petitioner as per the evidence and material on record treating them to be permanent residents of the State of Rajasthan and in the light of the observations made in this judgment hereinabove. It is clarified that it is for the RPSC to consider whether the certificate submitted by a candidate is genuine or concocted one and in a given case, if the RPSC has any doubt about the genuineness of such certificate, it can certainly call for additional material in this behalf from a particular candidate. However, the application of any of the petitioner should not be thrown out only on the ground that she cannot be said to be permanent resident of the State of Rajasthan and not fulfilling the condition given in the advertisement in this behalf. It is also clarified that in a given case, if a petitioner before her marriage was getting the benefit of reservation in a particular reserved category in her parental State and after her marriage her caste is treated to be in different reserved category in the State of Rajasthan, in such cases, the certificates issued by the authorities of the State of Rajasthan shall have binding effects as now the petitioners can be said to be permanent residents of the State of Rajasthan by virtue of their marriage. 30. 30. It is also clarified that this court has not examined the facts of each and every case and it is for the RPSC to consider the case of each of the petitioner keeping in view the observations made in this order. As stated earlier, in case of any doubt about the genuineness of a certificate produced by a candidate, it is always open for the RPSC to call for additional proof. However, in a case where such certificate is found to be genuine, the RPSC has to proceed with application of such applicant on its own merits because since the petitioners can now be said to be permanent residents of the State of Rajasthan, the certificates issued by the authorities of the State of Rajasthan shall have binding effect for all purpose including for getting employment and application forms of such applicants are to be processed accordingly.” 11. To counter the aforesaid judgments, learned counsel for the respondents has submitted the judgment delivered by this Court vide order dated 02.02.2022 in SBCWP 1452/2022; Sunita Rani vs. State of Rajasthan and Ors. in which, this Court has relied upon the earlier judgment delivered by Division Bench of this Court in State of Rajasthan vs. Smt. Manju Yadav (D.B. Special Appeal(W) No. 1116/2018) decided on 18.09.2018. Another judgment of this Court in Jaspal Kaur vs. State of Rajasthan and Ors. (SBCWP No. 1059/2020), decided on 28.01.2020 as well as in Santosh vs. State of Rajasthan and Ors. (SBCWP No. 4713/2020), decided on 20.07.2020. 12. After considering the aforesaid judgments in case of Sunita Rani (supra) , it has been observed as under:- “6. Division Bench of this Court in the case of State of Rajasthan vs. Smt. Manju Yadav (supra) has held as under: “4. Females outside the State of Rajasthan on migrating to Rajasthan, post marriage may not be entitled to the benefit of reservation in public employment in the State of Rajasthan on account of being a member of a SC or ST or OBC in another State. 5. But these ladies would certainly be entitled to be issued a SC or ST or OBC certificate, for the reason, apart from reservation in public employment these certificates may be relevant for grant of some benefit. For example, it may be a housing scheme. 5. But these ladies would certainly be entitled to be issued a SC or ST or OBC certificate, for the reason, apart from reservation in public employment these certificates may be relevant for grant of some benefit. For example, it may be a housing scheme. A migrant lady may claim benefit on the strength of the certificate if the scheme envisages domicile or residence as the entitlement for a house or a flat with reservation provided. 6. Under the circumstances, we find no infirmity in the directions issued by the learned Single Judge as to what procedure needs to be followed for grant of an OBC certificate applied for by a female who has migrated, post marriage, to the State of Rajasthan. We make it clear once again. Issue of public employment and benefit of reservation has been decided by the Supreme Court and thus our present order would not be misconstrued as enabling anybody to the benefit of reservation. The present order concerns only to the issuance of a certificate applied for.” 7. This Court reiterated the above referred position of law in Jaspal Kaur (supra) and Santosh (supra). 8. So it is clear that the petitioner is not entitled for reservation in public employment in the State of Rajasthan being the resident of State of Punjab, however, she can get the other benefits as being an SC on the strength of the certificate if the scheme envisages domicile or residence as entitlement.” 13. I have considered the material on record and also carefully heard learned counsel for both the parties. 14. By fair reading of terms and conditions of the advertisement, it becomes clear that a female candidate claiming reservation for appointment was required to submit caste certificate issued in the manner prescribed in clause 8(i) read with explanation (a) appended to sub-clause (v) of clause 8, which provides for submitting certificate of the Competent Authority of State of Rajasthan containing details of father of the female candidate and it was clearly mentioned that the certificate issued on the basis of details of husband shall not be admissible. Comparing certificates produced by the petitioner qua the aforesaid conditions mentioned in the advertisement, it is clear that the certificate submitted by the petitioner are apparently not in consonance with the conditions of the advertisement. 15. Comparing certificates produced by the petitioner qua the aforesaid conditions mentioned in the advertisement, it is clear that the certificate submitted by the petitioner are apparently not in consonance with the conditions of the advertisement. 15. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also not challenged the terms and conditions of the advertisement regarding acceptable certificates for granting reservation to the married female candidate and despite there being clear unambiguous condition in the advertisement, the petitioner opted to appear in the recruitment examination without challenging the terms and conditions of the advertisement. However, when she could not succeed and her candidature as a reserved category candidate has been rejected. Now, at this later stage, she cannot be allowed to claim anything against the terms and conditions of the advertisement. The petitioner has obviously waived her right to raise any objection against such specific terms and conditions of the advertisement. 16. Even otherwise, in the light of judgment in the case of State of Rajasthan vs. Smt. Manju Yadav (supra) delivered by the Division Bench of this Court, it is clear that females outside the State of Rajasthan on migrating to Rajasthan shall not be entitled to the benefit of reservation in public employment in the State of Rajasthan on account of being a member of SC/ST/OBC in another State. The judgments relied upon by the petitioner have been delivered by the Single Bench, therefore, obviously the judgment of Division Bench passed in the case of Manju Yadav (supra) would prevail. 17. It would also be relevant mentioned that this Court in case of Usha Kumari vs. State of Rajasthan and Ors. (SBCWP No. 6475/2019, decided on 10.05.2019 after relying upon the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed as under: “The issue as raised in the writ petition is squarely covered by the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ranjana Kumari vs. State of Uttarakhand and Ors., wherein, by order dated 23/9/2013, reported at (2013) 14 SCC 710 the following question was referred to the larger bench: “15. The question arising in this appeal is whether a person like the appellant, who is a Scheduled Caste in the State where she was born will not be entitled to the 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.” The three Judge Bench by its order dated 1/11/18 reported at (2018) 14 SCALE 755 inter alia laid down 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 vs. 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. vs. 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. “The issue referred to the larger bench and answer given by the larger bench squarely applies to the facts of the present case, wherein, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has navigated the contentions raised by the appellant therein that she was entitled for benefit of her caste because of migration on account of marriage, as the caste to which she belongs is also entitled to benefit of reservation in other State. The above aspect has been thoroughly considered by the Constitutions Bench in Bir Singh vs. Delhi Jal Board & Ors., AIR 2018 SC 4077 wherein, it has been observed as under: “34. It is an unquestionable principle of interpretation that interrelated statutory as well as constitutional provisions have to be harmoniously construed and understood so as to avoid making any provision nugatory and redundant. If the list of Scheduled Castes Scheduled Tribes in the Presidential Orders under Article 341/342 is subject to alteration only by laws made by Parliament, operation of the lists of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes beyond the classes or categories enumerated under the Presidential Order for a particular State/Union Territory by exercise of the enabling power vested by Article 16(4) would have the obvious effect of circumventing the specific constitutional provisions in Articles 341/342. In this regard, it must also be noted that the power under Article 16(4) is not only capable of being exercised by a legislative provision enactment but also by an Executive Order issued under Article 166 of the Constitution. It will, therefore, be in consonance with the constitutional scheme to understand the enabling provision under Article 16(4) to be available to provide reservation only to the classes or categories of Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes enumerated in the Presidential orders for a particular State/Union Territory within the geographical area of that State and not beyond. If in the opinion of a State it is necessary to extend the benefit of reservation to a class/category of Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes beyond those specified in the Lists for that particular (6 of 7) [CW- 6475/2019] State, constitutional discipline would require the State to make its views in the matter prevail with the central authority so as to enable an appropriated parliamentary exercise to be made by an amendment of the Lists of Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes for that particular State. Unilateral action by the States on the touchstone of Article 16(4) of the Constitution could be a possible trigger point of constitutional anarchy and therefore must be held to be impermissible under the Constitution.” (emphasis supplied) So far as the judgment in the case of Abhinav Dipakbhai Patel (supra) relied on by learned counsel for the petitioner is concerned, the said judgment has no application to the facts of the present case as the same pertained to Union Territory of Dadar & Nagar Haveli, wherein, by the Presidential notification the benefit of reservation was extended to the Scheduled Tribes mentioned therein on the basis of residence and not on the basis of origin. The said aspect was also considered in the case of Bir Singh (supra), wherein, for National Capital Territory of Delhi the following observations were made: “61. Accordingly, we answer the question referred in terms of the views expressed in para 34 of this opinion. We further hold that so far as the National Capital Territory of Delhi is concerned the pan India Reservation Rule in force is in accord with the constitutional scheme relating to services under the Union and the States/Union Territories.” In view of the above legal position, the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner apparently has no substance. Insofar as the reliance placed on the certificate (Annex.4) issued by the competent authority is concerned, the issuance of OBC certificate by itself cannot confer any right on the petitioner to seek benefit of reservation. The Division Bench in State of Rajasthan & Ors. vs. Smt. Manju Yadav : DB Special Appeal Writ No.1116/2018 decided on 18/9/2018 considered the issue of issuance of OBC certificate based on migration on account of marriage and made the following observations, which takes care of the certificate issued in favour of the petitioner as well as the issue raised in the present writ petition. The relevant portion reads as under: “2. The issue of benefit of reservation is distinct from the entitlement of a person to apply for grant of an OBC/ST/SC certificate. 3. In view of the Constitution Bench judgment delivered by the Supreme Court on 30/08/2018 in CA No.1085/2013 : Bir Singh Vs. Delhi Jal Board & Ors. and connected appeals, the issue of public employment has attained finality. The issue of benefit of reservation is distinct from the entitlement of a person to apply for grant of an OBC/ST/SC certificate. 3. In view of the Constitution Bench judgment delivered by the Supreme Court on 30/08/2018 in CA No.1085/2013 : Bir Singh Vs. Delhi Jal Board & Ors. and connected appeals, the issue of public employment has attained finality. A member of a Scheduled Caste or Schedule Tribe or OBC in a particular State cannot avail benefit of reservation in another State. Issue of benefit in Union Territories decided by the Constitution Bench is irrelevant for public employment in the State of Rajasthan. 4. Females outside the State of Rajasthan on migrating to Rajasthan, post marriage may not be entitled to the benefit of reservation in public employment in the State of Rajasthan on account of being a member of a SC or ST or OBC in another State. 5. But these ladies would certainly be entitled to be issued a SC or ST or OBC certificate. For the reason, apart from reservation in public employment these certificates may be relevant for grant of some benefit. For example, it may be a housing scheme. A migrant lady may claim benefit on the strength of the certificate if the scheme envisages domicile or residence as the entitlement for a house or a flat with reservation provided. 6. Under the circumstances, we find no infirmity in the directions issued by the learned Single Judge as to what procedure needs to be followed for grant of an OBC certificate applied for by a female who has migrated, post marriage, to the State of Rajasthan. We make it clear once again. Issue of public employment and benefit of reservation has been decided by the Supreme Court and thus our present order would not be misconstrued as enabling anybody to the benefit of reservation. The present order concerns only to the issuance of a certificate applied for.” (emphasis supplied) 18. Hence, in view of above discussion and judgments delivered by Hon’ble Apex Court, it is clear that the writ petition filed by the petitioner is devoid of any merit and substance. 19. Consequently, the writ petition is dismissed. 20. Stay application and all pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of.