IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA LPA No.701 of 2025 with LPA No. 702 of 2025 & LPA No. 313 of 2026 Decided on : _27.05.2026 1. LPA No. 701 of 2025 Jaswinder Kaur ... Appellant Versus State of H.P. and others …Respondents 2. LPA No. 702 of 2025 Sarvjeet Saini ... Appellant Versus State of H.P. and others …Respondents. 3. LPA No. 313 of 2026 Anu Rani ... Appellant Versus State of H.P. and others …Respondents. Coram Coram Hon’ble Mr. Gurmeet Singh Sandhawalia, Chief Justice. Hon’ble Mr. Justice Bipin Chander Negi, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the appellant(s) : Mr. Onkar Jairath, Advocate, for the appellants in LPA Nos. 701 & 702 of 2025. : Mr. Sudhir Thakur, Advocate, Sr. Advocate, with Mr. Karun Negi, Advocate, for the appellant in LPA No. 313 of 2026 For the respondents : Ms. Priyanka Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General, for the respondents in LPA Nos. 701 & 702 of 2025 and 1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? Yes -2- respondents No. 1, 2 & 4 in LPA No. 313 of 2026. Mr. Surensder Sharma, Advocate, for respondent No.3 in LPA No. 313 of 2026. G.S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice (Oral) The present set of appeals raise the sole question as to whether the appellants, who are all ladies belonging to the Saini Caste in the State of Punjab in LPA No. 701 of 2025, titled as Jaswinder Kaur vs. State of H.P. and others, are duly recognized as OBC (Other Backward Class) in the said State, are entitled to the benefit claimed by them in State of H.P. where they have settled after marriage. Similarly, in the case of LPA No. 702 of 2025, titled as Sarvjeet Saini vs. State of H.P. and others, appellant also belongs by birth to the Saini Caste, recognized as OBC by the State of Punjab, whereas, in LPA No. 313 of 2026, titled as Anu Rani vs. State of H.P. and others, appellant belongs to the Scheduled Caste category, being Balmiki Caste by birth in Haryana. 2. The common case, as such, of the three appellants is that, after marriage, they shifted to the State of Himachal Pradesh and married within the same caste, and both the Saini Caste and the Balmiki Caste are also -3- recognized as OBC/Scheduled Castes in the State and, resultantly, seek the benefit, as such, which has been denied on the ground that they were not born in the State of Himachal Pradesh and had only come by way of marriage. 3. The learned Single Judge, as such, while taking into consideration the judgments in Marri Chandra Shekhar Rao vs. Dean, Seth G.S. Medical College and others, (1990) 3 SCC 130, another Constitution Bench judgment in Bir Singh vs. Delhi Jal Board and others, reported in (2018) 10 SCC 312, and also the judgment in Bhadar Ram through LRs vs. Jassa Ram and others, (2022) 4 SCC 259, dismissed the writ petitions CWP No. 11901 of 2024 on 25.11.2024, CWP No. 11069 of 2024 on 17.10.2024 and CWP No. 7621 of 2026 on 15.05.2026. In Anu Rani’s case, the learned Single Judge also placed reliance upon the Coordinate Bench judgment passed in Civil Writ Petition No. 8043 of 2021, titled as Subeena Sabri vs. State of H.P. and others, decided on 19.05.2022, and also on the fact that, in the said case, the judgment of the Apex Court in Ranjana Kumari vs. State of Uttarakhand and others, (2019) 15 SCC 664, had been referred to deny the relief. 4. Counsel has vehemently submitted that bona fide Himachali Certificates have also been issued, as such, in -4- favour of the appellants, who now, after marriage, are residing in the State of Himachal Pradesh and, therefore, are being prejudiced in as much as they are not being granted the benefit, as such, of their caste even when the caste is recognized in the State. 5. In Ranjana Kumari’s case, a similar issue had arisen, wherein a person belonging to the Balmiki Caste, a Scheduled Caste of the State of Punjab, had married to a person belonging to the Balmiki Caste of Uttarakhand and migrated to that State and had thus claimed the benefit of being recognized as a Scheduled Caste in the migrated State, which did not find favour with the Apex Court. 6. It would be clear that, on an earlier occasion, the reference, as such, was on a specific issue, and the matter had been referred by Ranjana Kumari in the following terms:- "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." -5- 7. The question so referred in Ranjana Kumari's case (supra) has been answered by three Judges of Hon'ble Supreme Court in 2019 (15) SCC 664, as under:- 1. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the relevant material. 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 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 v. Seth G.S. Medical College and Action Committee on Issue of Caste Certificate to SCs/STs v. Union of India 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 and Action Committee. 5. We, therefore, find no error in the order of the High Court to justify any interference. appeal is accordingly dismissed." -6- 8. The case was referred and thereafter answered keeping in view the fact that the Apex Court had specifically held that the benefit cannot be granted in the State to which the person had migrated on marriage. Therefore, we are of the considered opinion that our hands are tied by the principle of precedent and that we are bound to follow the judgment of the Apex Court. 9. Resultantly, we do not find any plausible reason to take a different view, and the State is justified in its stand. Therefore, the appeals are dismissed, along with the pending miscellaneous applications, if any. (G.S. Sandhawalia) Chief Justice (Bipin Chander Negi) Judge 27th May, 2026 Tarun Singh -7-