JUDGMENT : Ajay Mohan Goel, J. By way of this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs:- “(i) That writ in the nature of certiorari may kindly be DAY issued, quashing and setting aside the impugned rejection letter dated 22.11.2023 (Annexure P-6). (ii) That writ in the nature of mandamus may kindly be issued, directing the Respondent No. 2 to issue the Other Backward Class certificate to the petitioner within a time bound period pursuant to his Online Application 01.04.2023. (iii) That strict action may kindly be ordered to be takenagainst the Respondent No 2 for causing unnecessary delay in issuing the Other Backward Class certificate to the petitioner and dereliction of his official duty. by way of issuance of writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ order or direction, respondents may kindly be directed to issue consolidated mark list to the petitioner along with degree in MA Physical Education, in the interest of justice, equity and fair play.” 2. Case of the petitioner is that he is a permanent resident of Village Ser, PO, Tehsil and District Solan. He belongs to “Kahar” caste, which is recognized as Other Backward Class (OBC) in the State of Himachal Pradesh. The petitioner is a bonafide Himachali. He applied for issuance of an OBC certificate, which was issued to him and the same was valid for one year. After the expiry of the same, the petitioner again applied for the grant of an OBC certificate, however, as nothing was done by the Authorities, he approached this Court by way of CWP No. 7104 of 2023. Said writ petition was disposed of by this Court on 19.10.2023, by issuance of a direction to respondent No. 2 to take action on the application filed by the petitioner for issuance of an OBC certificate. The application of the petitioner stands rejected in terms of Annexure P-6, dated 22.11.2023 and feeling aggrieved, the petitioner has filed this writ petition. 3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has argued that the rejection of the application of the petitioner is per se bad because as the petitioner is a bonafide Himachali and for all intents and purposes, he has been staying in the State of Himachal Pradesh for a pretty long time, he cannot be denied an OBC certificate. 4. 3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has argued that the rejection of the application of the petitioner is per se bad because as the petitioner is a bonafide Himachali and for all intents and purposes, he has been staying in the State of Himachal Pradesh for a pretty long time, he cannot be denied an OBC certificate. 4. Learned Deputy Advocate General has drawn the attention of the Court to the order passed by Tehsildar and has submitted that the petitioner does not belong to OBC category of Himachal Pradesh and he in fact originally belongs to State of Uttar Pradesh and simply because his caste in Uttar Pradesh is of the same nomenclature, which finds mention as one of the OBC categories in the State of Himachal Pradesh, on this count alone, the petitioner cannot claim OBC certificate. 5. Having heard learned Counsel for the parties and having carefully gone through the averments made in the writ petition as well as the impugned order, this Court is of the considered view that there is no merit in this writ petition. It is an admitted fact and was not disputed even by learned Counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is originally not a Himachali and he belongs to the State of Uttar Pradesh. That being the case, in terms of the provisions of Article 341, 342 and 342-A of the Constitution of India, one can get the benefit of being Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe or a person belonging to socially, educationally backward class in the State from which he hails. In this case, as the petitioner does not hail from the State of Himachal Pradesh, he has no right to claim either OBC category in the State of Himachal Pradesh or the OBC certificate from the State of Himachal Pradesh. This issue in fact has already been decided by this Court in CWP No. 11901 of 2024, titled as Smt. Jaswinder Kaur vs. The State of Himachal Pradesh and others, decided on 25.11.2024, by placing reliance on a five Judge Bench judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in 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 another, (1994) 5 SCC 244 . Relevant portion of the judgment passed by this Court reads as under:- 9. Relevant portion of the judgment passed by this Court reads as under:- 9. A Five Judge Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Action Committee on Issue of Caste Certificate to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes in the State of Maharashtra and Another, (1994) 5 Supreme Court Cases 244, while dealing with the interpretation of Articles 341 and 342 of the Constitution of India and while deciding the question that where a person belonging to a caste or tribe specified for the purposes of the Constitution to be Scheduled Caste, a Schedule Tribe in relation to State A, migrates to State B; whereas caste or tribe with same nomenclature is specified for the purposes of the Constitution to be a Scheduled Caste or Schedule Tribe in relation to that State B, will that person entitled to claim, be the privileges and benefits admissible to person belonging to Schedule Caste and/or Schedule Tribe' answered the same 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 fights, 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. 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. 17. Lastly the Constitution Bench referred to the cleavage in the views of different High Courts on the interpretation of Articles 341 and 342 of the Constitution and the consequential orders passed by the Government of India and the State Governments. It referred to the two decisions of the Gujarat High Court as well as the decision of the Karnataka High Court which place the interpretation canvassed before us by Mr. Raju Ramachandran. It referred to the two decisions of the Gujarat High Court as well as the decision of the Karnataka High Court which place the interpretation canvassed before us by Mr. Raju Ramachandran. The other side referred to the decisions of the Orissa High Court in K. Appa Rao v. Director of Posts & Telegraphs, Orissa, the decision of the Full Bench of the Bombay High Court in M.S. Malathi v. Commissioner, Nagpur Division" and the decision of the Punjab & Haryana High Court in V.B. Singh v. State of Punjab12 which take the contrary view canvassed before us by the respondents. All these decisions were considered by the Constitution Bench which agreed with the latter view. It upheld the view expressed in the communication dated 22- 2-1985 and negatived the challenge of the petitioner that the said view was ultra vires Articles 14, 15, 16 or 21. It, however, observed that in the facts and circumstances of the case and having regard to the fact that the petitioner student's career was involved it directed the authorities to consider whether the petitioner was a 'Goudi' and if yes, the institution may consider if he can be allowed to complete his studies in the institution. However, on the interpretation of the relevant provisions of the Constitution this Court was clear in its view that legally speaking he was not entitled to admission in the Scheduled Tribe quota. 18. We are in respectful agreement with the above view expressed by the Constitution Bench in the aforesaid decision. All the points which were canvassed before us by Mr. Raju Ramachandran were also canvassed by him in the said matter. They were negatived by the Constitution Bench. Nothing has been pointed out to persuade us to think that the view taken by the Constitution Bench requires reconsideration by a larger Bench. In fact we are in complete agreement with the interpretation placed on the various provisions of the Constitution, in particular Articles 341 and 342 thereof, in the said judgment. We, therefore,, see no merit in this writ petition and dismiss the same. However, we make no order as to costs. 10. In fact we are in complete agreement with the interpretation placed on the various provisions of the Constitution, in particular Articles 341 and 342 thereof, in the said judgment. We, therefore,, see no merit in this writ petition and dismiss the same. However, we make no order as to costs. 10. This was followed by another Five Judge Bench Judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Bir Singh vs. Delhi Jal Board and others, (2018) 10 Supreme Court Cases 312, in which Hon’ble Supreme Court after referring to its earlier adjudication on the issue including (1994) 5 Supreme Court Cases (supra) 244 held as under:- "34. Unhesitatingly, therefore, it can be said that a person belonging to a Scheduled Caste in one State cannot be deemed to be a Scheduled Caste person in relation to any other State to which he migrates for the purpose of employment or education. The expressions "in relation to that State or Union Territory" and "for the purpose of this Constitution" used in Articles 341 and 342 of the Constitution of India would mean that the benefits of reservation provided for by the Constitution would stand confined to the geographical territories of a State/ Union Territory in respect of which the lists of Scheduled Castes/ Scheduled Tribes have been notified by the Presidential Orders issued from time to time. A person notified as a Scheduled Caste in State. 'A' cannot claim the same status in another State on the basis that he is declared as a Scheduled Caste in State ‘A’.” 11. Again in Bhadar Ram (dead) Through Legal Representatives vs. Jassa Ram and others, (2022) 4 Supreme Court Cases 259, Hon’ble Supreme Court has reiterated this principle and 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.” 17. The decision of this Court in the case of Action Committee on Issue of Caste Certificate to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes in the State of Maharashtra and Another (supra) shall be applicable with full force to the facts of the present case also. The submission on behalf of the appellant original defendant that the said decision shall not be applicable to the facts of the case on hand as in that case the Court was considering the issue with respect to employment, education and in the present case dispute is with respect to sale /sale of property has no substance and cannot be accepted. 18. The reasoning given by this Court in the case of Action Committee on Issue of Caste Certificate to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes in the State of Maharashtra and Another (supra) are on interpretation and on a plain reading of Clause I of Articles 341 and 342 of the Constitution of India, which are referred to hereinabove. We see no reason to restrict the applicability of the decision of this Court in the case of Action Committee on Issue of Caste Certificate to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes in the State of Maharashtra and Another (supra) only with respect to employment, education or the like and not to make applicable the same with respect to purchase and sale of the property in case of sale and purchase of the land belonging to a Scheduled Caste person in the State of Rajasthan and when the said land was allotted to the original land owner–Chuni Lal as Scheduled Caste landless person.” 12. Thus, it is apparent and evident that it is settled law that a person belonging to an SC, ST or OBC category in one State cannot be deemed to be an SC, ST or OBC in relation to any other State, to which he or she migrates for the purpose of employment or education or otherwise nor he or she can claim the benefit in other State for any reason whatsoever. 13. Simply because, the petitioner has been issued a bonafide Himachali Certificate, this is no ground for treating her as an OBC for the State of Himachal Pradesh. The status of reservation be it Scheduled Caste, Scheduled Tribe or OBC is conferred on the basis of the constitutional provisions and the constitutional provisions cannot be undone or outreached by certificates like a bonafide Himachali Certificate. The status of OBC has been conferred upon the petitioner from her parental lineage as she happens to be the daughter of a father, who is from an OBC caste as declared in the State of Punjab. She can enjoy the status of an OBC only in the State of Punjab and upon migration or marriage or issuance of a bonafide Himachali Certificate, she cannot claim the conferment of the status of an OBC of the State of Himachal Pradesh upon her even if the nomenclature of the caste is same or similar in the State of Punjab and Himachal Pradesh.” 6. Accordingly, simply because the petitioner has been issued a bonafide Himachali certificate, the same is no ground to treat him as belonging to an OBC category in the State of Himachal Pradesh. The status of reservation as a Scheduled Caste, Scheduled Tribe or OBC is conferred on the basis of constitutional provisions and the same cannot be undone or outreached by a certificate like a Himachali Bonafide certificate. When the petitioner does not belong to the State of Himachal Pradesh and in fact, belongs to the State of Uttar Pradesh, he cannot claim either an OBC status or OBC certificate in the State of Himachal Pradesh. Accordingly, this Court does not find any infirmity in the order passed by the Tehsildar and therefore, this writ petition being devoid of any merit is dismissed. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, also stand disposed of.