2025:HHC:18004 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 2970 of 2022 Decided on: 22.05.2025 Neelam Rani … Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others … Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 _____________________________________________________ For the petitioner : Mr. Rajiv Rai, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. Pushpender Jaswal, Additional Advocate General for respondents No. 1 to 6. : Mr. Harish Dod, Advocate for respondent No. 7. Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral) By way of this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs:- “A. That the Hon'ble High Court may kindly be pleased to issue an appropriate writ whereby the impugned order dated 29th of April, 2022 vide Annexure P/1, whereby the respondent No. 6 in exercise of power conferred to him under Chapter 28 of the HP Land Record Manual, has been pleased to cancel the OBC Certificate No. OB20211217284420 dated 01.02.2022 issued in favor of the present petitioner, may kindly be quashed and set-aside. 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2025:HHC:18004 B. That all the subsequent adverse action taken by the respondents if any, in pursuant to the impugned order dated 29th of April, 2022 vide Annexure P/1, may kindly be quashed and set-aside.” 2. The case of the petitioner is that she was born on 01.01.1982, in village Mandauthi, District Jhajjar, Haryana, in a family belonging to ‘Jaat’ community. This community in the State of Haryana falls in the General category. She was married on 04.06.2002, in a family belonging to ‘Jaat’ community, at village Bathol, Post Office Dharampur, Tehsil Kasauli, District Solan, H.P. When the petitioner was married in the said family, the ‘Jaat’ community in the State of Himachal Pradesh was also falling under the General category. On 16.11.2002, the State Government vide Gazette Notification (Annexure P-4) included the ‘Jat/Jaat’ in the list of ‘Backward Classes’. It is further the case of the petitioner that after her marriage, she continued her studies and completed her B.Ed. Degree from the Himachal Pradesh University, Shimla, in the year 2006. She also did her Post Graduation in the year 2009. 3. In the year 2018, vide Annexure P-7, Himachal Pradesh Service Selection Board issued notification, inviting applications for 699 posts of TGT (Arts) on contract basis. This included certain posts under the Other Backward Classes (OBC) category. The 3 petitioner applied for issuance of an OBC certificate, which was duly issued to her vide Annexure P-8 on 06.02.2019. The petitioner also applied for the said post as an OBC category candidate. She qualified the written examination as well as the interview from the OBC category and was duly selected as TGT (Arts) and she joined as such at Government Senior Secondary School, Jagjit Nagar on 19.11.2019 vide Annexure P-9. Her OBC certificate was duly examined and verified before she was offered appointment. Her appointment initially was on contract basis. Thereafter, the Government took a decision to regularize the services of the petitioner, on completion of two years of contractual service and for this purpose, an OBC certificate was required. The petitioner approached respondent No. 6 for the issuance of said certificate and this OBC certificate was issued to her on 01.02.2022 vide Annexure P-2. The petitioner submitted said certificate to the Authority concerned. Her services were regularized w.e.f. 25.04.2022 vide Annexure P-10. 4. Surprisingly, after regularization of her services, respondent No. 6 issued order dated 29.04.2022, in terms whereof, it was mentioned that the certificate of OBC was inadvertently issued to the petitioner and she was not entitled for the grant of said certificate as the ‘Jaat’ category of Haryana, does not falls in the 4 OBC category in the State of Haryana, i.e. the State from which the petitioner originally belongs. Further as per the petitioner, in terms of Annexure P-1, order dated 29.04.2022, respondent No. 6, in exercise of powers conferred upon him under Chapter 28 of the HP Land Record Manual, has cancelled the OBC certificate issued to her with immediate effect and it has been directed that the petitioner shall not be using said certificate for any purpose to obtain the benefits of reservation provided for OBC category. 5. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has argued that the act of the respondents of cancelling the OBC certificate of the petitioner is per se bad in law for the reason that the respondents have erred in not appreciating that when the petitioner was married to her husband, who also belongs to ‘Jaat’ community, this community was not recognized as OBC category in the State of Himachal Pradesh. After the inclusion of “Jaat” community in the OBC category in the State of Himachal Pradesh, the petitioner applied for issuance of OBC certificate and the OBC certificate was correctly issued in her favour and the cancellation thereof, in terms of the impugned order, is not sustainable in the eyes of law. Learned Counsel further argued that the petitioner did not procure the OBC certificate earlier by concealing any fact and therefore also, the act of cancelling the certificate by respondent No. 6 is not sustainable in 5 law as it will adversely affect the petitioner. No other argument was advanced. 6. On the other hand, learned Additional Advocate General, has defended the act of the respondents by placing reliance upon the reply filed by the respondents. He submitted that the petitioner does not belongs to the State of Himachal Pradesh by birth. She admittedly belongs to the State of Haryana. The family to which the petitioner was married is a family belonging to “Jaat” community in the State of Himachal Pradesh, which at the time of her marriage, was not recognized as an OBC category. Learned Additional Advocate General further submitted that later on, after the marriage of the petitioner, the “Jaat” community was included in the OBC category but this does not confers status of OBC category upon the petitioner for the reason that her status has be gauged on the basis of her birth and as the petitioner is belonging to the State of Haryana, she, by no stretch of imagination, can be construed to be an OBC of the State of Himachal Pradesh, simply because “Jaat” community subsequently stands recognized as OBC in the State of Himachal Pradesh. With these submissions, he prayed for dismissal of the petition. 7. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and carefully gone through the pleadings as well as documents appended 6 therewith. 8. It is an admitted factual position that the petitioner belongs to the State of Haryana. Irrespective of the fact as to whether the community, to which she belongs, is recognized as OBC category in the State of Himachal Pradesh, the fact of the matter is that the petitioner originally does not belongs to the State of Himachal Pradesh. The community, to which she belongs as an original resident of State of Haryana, cannot confer upon her any right to seek an OBC certificate even if this category is recognized as a Backward community in the State of Himachal Pradesh. This is settled law and this issue has been dealt with by this Court in an earlier writ petition, i.e. CWP No. 11901 of 2024, titled as Smt. Jaswinder Kaur vs. The State of Himachal Pradesh and others, decided on 25.11.2024, relevant paragraphs of which judgment are being quoted herein below:- “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 7 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 8 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. 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 9 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. 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 10 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 11 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. 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 o 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 12 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. 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 13 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 14 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 15 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 16 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.” 9. In the light of the law settled by Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, this Court is of the considered view that even if earlier an OBC certificate was issued in favour of the petitioner, the cancellation thereof subsequently, cannot be faulted with. As the petitioner does not originally belongs to the State of Himachal Pradesh, her marriage in the State of Himachal Pradesh in a community, which after her marriage, stands recognized as an OBC community, does not confer upon her the status of OBC. Only those 17 persons, who are the original residents of the Himachal Pradesh by birth, can be conferred the status of SC/ST/OBC categories and a resident of State of Haryana cannot get this benefit in the State of Himachal Pradesh because the benefits in terms of the Constitution of India are State centric. Accordingly, the prayer of the petitioner that the act of the respondents of cancelling the OBC certificate issued to her be held to be bad, is rejected. However, taking into consideration the fact that the petitioner did not mislead the Authorities when initially she was issued OBC certificate, on the strength of which, she was earlier employed as a contract employee and now is serving as a regular employee, this Court directs the respondents not to disturb the employment of the petitioner to the post in issue. However, the petitioner shall be treated as a General Category candidate and as has been held by the Authority also, she cannot take any advantage of OBC certificate, which incidentally now stands revoked, in the matters of reservation etc. With these observations, the writ petition stands disposed of. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, also stand disposed of accordingly. (Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge May 22, 2025 (narender)