IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 16124 of 2024 Decided on: 30.10.2025 Poonam Kumari …Petitioner Versus State of H.P and others .…Respondents. ………………………………………………………………………………. Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioner: Mr. Mohar Singh, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr.L.N. Sharma, Additional Advocate General and Mr. Rajat Choudhry, Assistant Advocate General for respondents No. 1 & 2. Mr. Vikrant Thakur, Advocate, for respondent No.3. Jyotsna Rewal Dua , J The following order passed in this writ petition on 26.12.2024 noticed the grievance of the petitioner raised in the instant writ petition:- “Notice. Mr. Amandeep Sharma, Additional Advocate General and Mr. Subham Singh, Advocate, appear and waive service of notice on behalf of respondents No.1 & 2 and respondent No.3, respectively. 2. Petitioner has grievance to the rejection of her candidature as reflected in the rejection list published by respondent No.3 on 10.12.2024 (Annexure P-7), where her name is mentioned at Serial No.14. The rejection is based on the reason "for want of SC certificate on parental basis." 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as a 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 native of District Hoshiarpur in State of Punjab by birth, petitioner belongs to ‘Ad-Dharmi’ caste, which is recognized as Scheduled Caste in State of Punjab as well as in State of Himachal Pradesh; After her marriage to a person of the same caste in Himachal Pradesh, petitioner migrated to the Himachal Pradesh and has been a permanent domicile of Himachal Pradesh for the last 16 years. It is submitted that the rejection of petitioner’s candidature for want of SC certificate on parental basis is arbitrary, unconstitutional, and illegal. 4. Respondents are directed to file instructions/reply addressing the contentions raised by the petitioner by the next date of hearing. List on 08.01.2025.” 2. On the next date of hearing i.e. 08.01.2025 learned counsel for the petitioner prayed for grant of following interim relief as prayed in CMP No.25626/2025:- “It is therefore, respectfully prayed that present application may kindly be allowed and during the pendency of the writ petition, impugned lists of proposed rejected candidates, Annexure P-7 qua the petitioner may kindly be stayed and the respondent No.3 may kindly be directed to retain the petitioner in the Schedule cast category and keep on post of Lecturer History vacant to avoid the multiplicity of litigation/or any other suitable order deemed fit and proper by this Hon’ble Court may also be kindly passed in the interest of justice and fair play during the pendency of the present petition.” By way of interim relief, petitioner prayed for directing the respondents to retain the petitioner in scheduled caste category and for that reason sought direction to respondents to keep one post of Lecturer History vacant. The relief prayed for by the petitioner for grant of aforesaid specific interim relief w.e.f. her retention and 3 consideration in scheduled caste category was considered and rejected as under:- “Pursuant to the order dated 26.12.2024, learned counsel for respondent No.3 has placed on record a brief note along with a notification dated 05.03.2018. 2. Additionally, learned counsel for respondent No.3 has relied upon the judgment dated 19.05.2022 rendered in CWP No.8043 of 2021 (Subeena Sabri vs. State of H.P. & Ors.) to oppose the prayer made in the writ petition. In the case of Subeena Sabri (supra), the issue for determination was whether the petitioner, by virtue of being married to a person belonging to the OBC category in Himachal Pradesh, or by inclusion of the original caste of the petitioner in the list of Other Backward Classes in Himachal Pradesh, was entitled to the issuance of a certificate of eligibility for reservation of jobs for the OBC category in the State of Himachal Pradesh. After exhaustively deliberating over the issue and taking note of several precedents in timeline from the High Courts and from the Hon’ble Apex Court, the Division Bench held that the view taken in Review Peittion No.47 of 2021 (State of H.P. & Ors. vs. Naveen Kumari), was per incuriam. The fact that petitioner is married in State of Himachal Pradesh to a person belonging to OBC and even the caste to which the petitioner belongs in the State of her origin, has been declared as OBC in State of Himachal Pradesh, cannot be held sufficient to carve out an exception of law as declared by Hon’ble Apex Court. Relevant portion of the judgment reads as under:- 19. In our considered view,in none of the judgments noticed by the Coordinate Bench of this court while deciding Review Petition No. 47 of 2021, scope for any exception was left. It cannot be overlooked that in all the cases the purpose was to protect the salutary principle enshrined in Articles 341 & 342 of the Constitution of India. To achieve such purpose, Hon’ble Apex Court repeatedly has held that migration for whatsoever reason, from one State to another, cannot be a sufficient ground for claiming benefit of being SC/ST/OBC in the migratee state. The objective criteria for declaration of a particular 4 Caste or Tribe as SC/ST/OBC in one State is the specific level of backwardness, social disparage and economic disadvantages prevalent in such state. Though, one Caste notified as Scheduled Caste/ tribe/ OBC in one State may also find place in the list of notified Scheduled Caste/ Tribe/OBC in the other, but the same has not been held to be sufficient for claiming the benefit in other State by a person after migration for the reason that the degree of disadvantages of various elements which constitute the data for specification may be entirely different. The migrations be it voluntary or involuntary have been taken care of in the judgments passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, as noticed above. Thus, in our considered view, mere grant of a certificate of bona fide resident to a person by the migratee State after her marriage in such state cannot be an exception. The view taken by a Coordinate Bench in Review Petition No.47 of 2021, titled State of H.P & others Vs Navin Kumari to that effect, in our understanding, is per incuriam. 20. In the instant case, the facts that petitioner is married in the State of Himachal Pradesh to a person belonging to OBC and even the Caste to which the petitioner belonged in the State of her original has been declared as a OBC in the State of Himachal Pradesh, cannot be held sufficient to carve out an exception to the mandate of law, as declared by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Marri Chandra Shekhar Rao vs. Deen, Seth G.S. Medical College and others 1990(3) SCC 130. 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 others, 1994(5) SCC, 244 and Subhash Chandra and another vs. Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board and others 2009 (15) SCC, 458, Pankaj Kumar vs. State of Jharkhand & others, 2021 SCC (online) SC 616 and Ranjana Kumari Vs State of Uttaranchal 2019 (15) SCC 664.” 5 3. In view of above, it will be appropriate to direct the respondents to file their detailed reply to the writ petition. Reply be filed within four weeks. List thereafter.” 3. The parties completed the pleadings thereafter. 4. During the course of hearing today, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that there are errors in the drafting of the petition, therefore, petitioner be permitted to withdraw the writ petition with liberty to file afresh in accordance with law. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents did not oppose the prayer. In view of the above, this writ petition is permitted to be withdrawn. The petitioner however is at liberty to file a fresh petition in accordance with law subject to all just exceptions. The writ petition stands disposed of in the above terms, so also the pending miscellaneous application(s), if any. Jyotsna Rewal Dua Judge 30th October, 2025(yogesh)