HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT JAMMU LPAOW No. 17/2013 Reserved on : 24.04.2025 Pronounced on: 30.08.2025 1.Anju Khajuria W/o Sh. Sanjay Lal R/o Village Dhara Tehsil Akhnoor District Jammu. 2. Pinki Devi W/o Sh. Kewal Kumar R/o Village Kathar Tehsil Akhnoor District Jammu. 3. Poonam Khajuria W/o Sh. Manohar Lai R/o Village Dhara Tehsil Akhnoor District Jammu. 4. Suman Lata W/o Sh. Ashok Kumar R/o Village Gharattal Tehsil Akhnoor District Jammu. 5. Rajni Kumari W/o Sh. Mohinder Pal R/o Village Gharattal Tehsil Akhnoor District Jammu. 6. Nisha Kumari W/o Sh. Ashok Kumar R/o Village Goshan Tehsil Akhnoor District Jammu. 7. Manjeet Kour W/o S. Vikramjeet Singh R/o Village Nardi P.O Nard Bala Tehsil Akhnoor District Jammu ….Petitioner/Appellant(s) Through:- Mr. Ashok Sharma, Advocate V/s 1. State of Jammu and Kashmir through Commissioner/ Secretary Government, revenue Department, Civil Secretariat, Jammu. 2. Commissioner/Secretary to Government, General Administrative Department, Civil Secretariat, Jammu. 3. Commissioner/Secretary to Government, School Education Department, Civil Sectt. Jammu. 4. J&K Service Selection Board through Chairman Rail head Complex, Jammu. 5. Tehsildar, Akhnoor. 6. Anju Sharma W/O Sh. Ravi Kant R/OP Mathwal P.O Jhajjar Kotli Tehsil and District Jammu. 7. Abdur Gafoor S/0 Sh. Farman Ali R/0 Village Suketar P.O Jhajjar Kotli Tehsil and District Jammu. LPAOW No. 17 of 2013 8. Jatinder Singh S/0 Sh. Mehar Singh R/O 317 Narari Bala Tehsil Akhnoor District Jammu. 9. Suraksha Kumari D/O Sh. Jagdish Kumar R/O VPO Dev Nagar Barui Tehsil Akhnoor District Jammu. 10. Anupam Sharma D/O Sh. Ramesh Kumar Sharma C/0 Anu Manu Provisions Store Sector No. 1 Vinayak Nagar,Jammu. 11. Veena Devi D/O Sh. Rikhi Ram R/O Basyara Panjgraian Tehsil Akhnoor District Jammu. 12. Nisha Kumari D/O Sh. Madan Lai R/O Village Kangrail Manwal Tehsil and District Jammu. 13. Attar Singh S/0 Shonki Ram R/O Village Panjowa Tehsil and District Jammu. 14. Radha Kumari D/O Sh. Tilak Raj R/O Dev Nagar Nardi Tehsil Akhnoor District Jammu. 15. Rajni Malhotra D/O Sh. Sukhdev Raj R/O Tachwan Nardi Tehsil Akhnoor District Jammu. 16. Lashman Dass S/0 Sh. Pomi Ram R/, Basiara Tehsil Akhnoor District Jammu. 17. Jagmohan Singh S/O Sh. Raj Singh R/O Nardibala Tehsil Akhnoor District Jammu. 18. Vishal Sharma S/0 Sh. Bansi Lai R/O Dhung Tehsil and District Jammu. 19. Harish Chander S/O Sh. Sukhdev Raj R/O Tacharwan Nardi Tehsil Akhnoor District Jammu. ..…Respondent(s) Through:- Ms. Sagira Jaffer, Advocate vice Ms. Monika Kohli, Sr. AAG Mr. Prem Sadotra, Advocate for R- 13 CORAM: HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE SINDHU SHARMA, JUDGE (Through Virtual Mode) HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD CHATTERJI KOUL, JUDGE JUDGMENT Per : Sindhu Sharma-J 1. This appeal is directed against the order dated 18.12.2012, passed by learned Single Judge of this Court in OWP No. 1471/2010 and SWP No.27/2012, whereby the learned writ Court has dismissed the said petitions with cost of ₹ 20,000/- to be paid to the official respondents as well to the private respondents in equal shares. 2. Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to the filing of the present appeal are that the appellants, after their marriage, came to be settled in areas notified as Backward Areas under the Jammu and Kashmir Reservation Act, 2004. Pursuant to Advertisement Notice No. 07 of 2010 dated LPAOW No. 17 of 2013 12.11.2010, issued by the Jammu and Kashmir Services Selection Board, the appellants submitted their applications for the posts of Teachers reserved for residents of Backward Areas. In order to avail the benefit of reservation, they applied for issuance of certificates certifying them as belonging to the Socially and Educationally Backward Class, the category to which their husbands belonged. However, their applications were rejected by the Tehsildar, Akhnoor, on the ground that the appellants had not fulfilled the mandatory requirement of actual residence in the notified Backward Areas for a minimum period of fifteen years, and were, therefore, held ineligible for issuance of such certificates. 3. Aggrieved by the denial of certificates certifying them as residents of Backward Areas, the appellants approached this Hon’ble Court by filing a writ petition, being OWP No. 1471/2010, seeking a direction to the Tehsildar, Akhnoor, to issue certificates of residence in Backward Areas in terms of SRO 294 dated 21.10.2005. In the alternative, the appellants prayed for a declaration that the said SRO is unconstitutional on the ground that, upon marriage, a woman acquires the domicile of her husband. It was further contended that similarly situated married women residing in other notified Backward Areas had been issued such certificates, and therefore, denial of the same to the appellants amounted to hostile discrimination. By way of an alternative relief, the appellants also sought the striking down of Rule 21 of the Jammu and Kashmir Reservation Rules, 2005, as being violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. The ground urged in support of the challenge was that the prescription of a minimum period of fifteen years of residence in a notified Backward Area to qualify for issuance of such a certificate defeats the object sought to be achieved by LPAOW No. 17 of 2013 the rule, inasmuch as even persons born and raised in these areas but who have not attained the age of fifteen years would stand excluded from the benefit of reservation. 4. In the writ petition, upon motion hearing, the learned Writ Court directed the Services Selection Board to accept the appellants' Application Forms, subject to the condition that the declaration of their results shall remain withheld until further orders of the Court, and that the mere acceptance of their Application Forms shall not create any equity in their favour in the event they fail to establish their entitlement on merits. Vide order dated 08.04.2011, the appellants were also permitted to appear in the interview. 5. The appellants’ aforesaid writ petition was still pending adjudication when they again approached this Hon’ble Court by filing a fresh petition, bearing SWP No. 27/2012, with a change in the cause title and by impleading another petitioner, namely, Manjeet Kour, who had also filed a similar petition seeking issuance of a Resident of Backward Area Certificate in her favour. In the said petition, the following reliefs were prayed for:- “Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 103 of the Constitution of the State of Jammu and Kashmir for issue of an appropriate writ, direction or order in the nature of writ of certiorari quashing the selection of private respondents no. 6 to 12 for the posts of teacher in the District Cadre Jammu (School Education Department) advertised pursuant to Advertisement NoticeNo.07 of 2010 dated 12.11.2010 as published in then ewspaper "Daily Excelsior" dated 15.11.2010. AND For issuance of further appropriate writ, direction or order in the nature of writ of mandamus /prohibition commanding/restraining the official respondents not to make the appointments of the private respondents no. 6 to12 to the post-against which they have provisionally been selected. AND For issuance of further appropriate writ, direction or order in the nature of writ of mandamus for declaring the LPAOW No. 17 of 2013 clarification/communication issued by the General Administration Department to all the Deputy Commissioners vide No. GAD (Adm) 18/2006-1 ddted 27.02.2006 whereby the Rule 21- A of the J&K Reservation Rules 2005 has been directed to be interpreted in a manner contrary to the mandate of Rule 21 itself as ultra-vires the Chapter-Ill of the Constitution of India and contrary to the rules of reservation. AND For issuance of further appropriate writ, direction or order in the nature of writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to appoint the petitioners against the posts of teachers under RBA category advertised in pursuance to the Advertisement Notice No. 07 of 2010 dated 12 II 2010 WITH Such other additional or alternative relief as this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case." 6. The learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the appellants had applied before the Tehsildar, Akhnoor, for issuance of Resident of Backward Area (RBA) certificates in their favour. Along with their applications, they annexed all requisite documents, including fresh Permanent Resident Certificates (PRCs) based on the PRCs already held by their respective husbands, the RBA certificates of their husbands, marriage certificates, and other relevant documents. However, the Tehsildar, Akhnoor, rejected their applications by merely endorsing the order of rejection on the face of the applications themselves, without application of mind, without assigning any reasons, and without affording the appellants an opportunity of being heard. It is submitted that such rejection is arbitrary, mechanical, and violative of the principles of natural justice. 7. The further contention of the learned counsel for the appellants is that, ordinarily, most women enter into marriage after attaining the age of majority. If the requirement of fifteen years of residence is strictly applied, it would render such applicants ineligible for RBA certification, notwithstanding the fact that their husbands are already RBA certificate holders. It is submitted that the Reservation Act and the rules framed LPAOW No. 17 of 2013 thereunder are welfare legislation and must be interpreted in a liberal manner so as to advance the object of social justice and inclusion. 8. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record as well as the order dated 18.12.2012. 9. The controversy essentially is whether the appellants are entitled to the certificate of socially backward class as defined under Section 2(o) of the Act and Rule-21 of the Rules framed thereunder. Section 2(o) of the Act defines socially and educationally backward classes of :- (i) The persons residing in the backward area; (ii) The persons residing in the area adjoining Actual Line of Control, and (iii) Week and under-privileged classes(social castes), declared as such under notification SRO-394 dated 5.9.1981 read with notification SRO-272 dated 3.7.1982 and notification SRO-271 dated 22.8.1988 as mentioned from time to time. 10. Rule-21 of the rules framed under the Act lays down the procedure for issuance of certificates under the Act. Relevant portion 2(iii) is reproduced as under:- 2(iii) A person claiming benefit for being resident of Backward Area or of Area near the Line of Actual Control must establish that he/she has resided in the area for a period not less than 15 years before the date of application and is actually residing in the said area. However, a person may not be disentitled from claiming this benefit only on the ground that his/her father or person on whom he/she is dependent is living in a place which is not identified as Backward Area or area near line of Actual Control on account of his employment, business or other professional or vocational reasons; 11. With regard to the principal contention raised by the appellants in the first writ petition that upon their marriage, they stood transplanted into the families of their husbands and thereby acquired the same status as that of their husbands, including the status of being residents of a Notified Backward Area the learned Writ Court rightly held that such a contention, if accepted, would defeat the very object and purpose of the reservation policy. The reservation was intended to bring at par those individuals who, LPAOW No. 17 of 2013 by virtue of their continuous residence in a declared Backward Area, were placed at a disadvantage and thus unable to avail equal opportunities in competitive selections for admission to professional institutions and recruitment to Government services. 12. As regards the further submission of the appellants seeking to read down the requirement of fifteen years' continuous residence stipulated under Rule 21(iii) of the Jammu and Kashmir Reservation Rules, 2005, the learned Single Judge correctly observed that such a reading down is unwarranted. It was rightly noted that if the requirement of fifteen years' residence were to be dispensed with, it would paradoxically exclude even those born in the Backward Areas from the benefit of reservation. In Taanisha Manhas & ors. vs. State of J&K & ors. reported as 2023 (2) JKJ 268, this Court has held as under:- 19. Rule 21 of the Rules specifies the time limit for which one has to be living in such an area and it provides that a person claiming such a benefit must establish that he has resided in the area for a period not less than 15 years before the date of application and has actually residing in the said area. Thus, a person has to be a resident in the area adjoining Actual Line of Control and that he must be residing therein for a period not less than 15 years before the date of application and is actually residing in the said area. 13. Furthermore, the stipulation of fifteen years’ residence has a clear and rational nexus with the objective sought to be achieved by the framers of the reservation policy, namely, to extend its benefit exclusively to bona fide and long-term residents of the Notified Backward Areas. 14. A woman married to a person residing in a notified Backward Area (RBA) in Jammu and Kashmir is not automatically entitled to an RBA certificate for recruitment to government service; she must fulfill the residency requirements herself, generally meaning she has actually resided in the notified backward area for the requisite 15 years. Under Rule 21(iii), LPAOW No. 17 of 2013 a person claiming benefit of reservation on the ground that he belongs to an area near Line of Actual Control is required to establish before the Competent Authority that he has resided in the area for a minimum period of fifteen years prior to the date of application and is actually residing on the said date in the said area. This condition has been prescribed to ensure that only genuine and long-term residents of the LAC areas, who have endured the associated hardships and risks, are entitled to the benefits of reservation provided under the said Rules. 15. The Supreme Court in case titled Meera Kanwaria vs Sunita & Ors, reported in 2006 (1) SCC 344 in para 24 observed as under:- “It is, therefore, beyond any doubt or dispute that a person who is a high-caste Hindu and not subjected to any social or educational backwardness in his life, by reason of marriage alone cannot ipso facto become a member of the Scheduled Caste or the Scheduled Tribe. In the absence of any strict proof he cannot be allowed to defeat the very provisions made by the State for reserving certain seats for disadvantaged people." 16. In case titled State of Tripura v. Namita Majumdar [Barman]" reported in (1998) 9 SCC 217, is another case in which change in caste status on the ground of marriage with a reserved category person was not approved. The Supreme Court in para 6 held as under:- “6…………The submission is that a person by reason of her/his marriage to a person belonging to a Scheduled Caste is not entitled to claim the benefit of a Scheduled Caste. The learned counsel has placed reliance on the decision of this Court in the case of Valsamma Paul v. Cochin University, . The appellant, in that case, was, by birth, a Syrian Catholic, a forward class in the State of Kerala. She had married a person who was Latin Catholic, a Backward Class in the said State. It was held that the said appellant could not claim the benefits under Articles 15 (4) and 16 (4) of the Constitution. Dr N.M. Ghatate, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent, has submitted that the said decision in Valsamma Paul Case (Supra) needs reconsideration and has pointed out that in the context of election law this Court has recognised that the benefit of reservation for Scheduled Castes can be availed of by a person on the basis of marriage. The said decisions have been taken note of and distinguished in the decision in Valsamma LPAOW No. 17 of 2013 Paul Case (Supra). We do not find any reason to take a view different from that taken in Valsamma Paul Case (Supra). It must, therefore, be held that the respondent cannot be declared to be entitled to the benefits of a Scheduled Caste on the basis of her marriage to a person belonging to a Scheduled Caste.” 17. Again the Supreme Court in case titled Sobha Hymavathi Devi vs. Setti Gangagdhara Swamy and others in para 10 observed as under:- “10………..Even otherwise, we have difficulty in accepting the position that a non-tribal who marries a tribal could claim to contest a seat reserved for tribals. Article 332 of the Constitution speaks of reservation of seats for Scheduled Tribes in Legislative Assemblies. The object is clearly to give representation in the legislature to Scheduled Tribe candidates, considered to be deserving of such special protection. To permit a non-tribal under cover of a marriage to contest such a seat would tend to defeat the very object of such a reservation. The decision of this Court in Valsamma Paul (Mrs.) vs. Cochin University and others (supra), supports this view. Neither the fact that a non-backward female married a backward male nor the fact that she was recognized by the community thereafter as a member of the backward community, was held to enable a non- backward to claim reservation in terms of Articles 15(4) or 16(4) of the Constitution. Their Lordships after noticing Bhoobun Moyee v. Ram Kishore, (1865) 10 MIA 279, and Lulloobhoy Bappoobhoy Cassidass Moolchund v. Cassibai, (1879-80) 7 IA 212, held that a woman on marriage becomes a member of the family of her husband and thereby she becomes a member of the caste to which she has moved. The caste rigidity breaks down and would stand as no impediment to her becoming a member of the family to which the husband belongs and to which she gets herself transplanted. Thereafter, this Court noticed that recognition by the community was also important. Even then, this Court categorically laid down that the recognition of a lady as a member of a backward community in view of her marriage would not be relevant for the purpose of entitlement to reservation under Article 16(4) of the Constitution for the reason that she as a member of the forward caste, had an advantageous start in life and a marriage with a male belonging to a backward class would not entitle her to the facility of reservation given to a backward community. The High Court has applied this decision to a seat reserved in an election in terms of Article 332 of the Constitution. We see no reason why the principle relating to reservation under Articles 15(4) and 16(4) laid down by this Court should not be extended to the constitutional reservation of a seat for a Scheduled Tribe in the House of the People or under Article 332 in the Legislative Assembly. The said reservations are also constitutional reservations intending to benefit the really underprivileged and not those who come to the class by way of marriage.” LPAOW No. 17 of 2013 18. The aforesaid judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court laying down the law on the subject are clear and hold in unambiguous words that no person can claim the benefit of reservation merely by virtue of marriage or adoption. It is a settled position of law that the status of being a resident of a backward area is a personal attribute and cannot be acquired merely by virtue of marriage. Therefore, the appellants cannot claim the benefit of reservation solely on the basis of their marriage to individuals possessing such status. The benefit is confined to those who have themselves actually resided in the notified backward areas as per the criteria laid down under the relevant rules and notifications. 19. With regard to the maintainability of the second writ petition bearing SWP No. 27/2012, it is observed that the learned Single Judge has rightly concluded that the appellants were barred from initiating a fresh writ petition seeking adjudication of issues which had already been raised and adjudicated upon in the earlier proceedings concerning their claim to the status of residents of Backward Areas. In the subsequent petition, the appellants sought to challenge the selection of candidates who were otherwise eligible under the reserved category for residents of Backward Areas. However, such a challenge does not alter the fundamental cause of action, inasmuch as the validity of the respondents' selection could not be examined unless and until the appellants had first succeeded in establishing their own entitlement to the said reserved category. Therefore, the learned Single Judge was correct in holding that the appellants had no legal right to assail the selection of candidates appointed against reserved vacancies without first substantiating their own claim to eligibility under that category. LPAOW No. 17 of 2013 20. In view of the above, we find no infirmity or illegality in the judgment rendered by the learned Single Judge warranting interference. Consequently, the present appeal is found to be devoid of merit and is, accordingly, dismissed. (Vinod Chatterji Koul) (Sindhu Sharma) Judge Judge Jammu: 30.08.2025 Bir Whether approved for reporting? Yes/No