1 2025:CGHC:41346-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 4374 of 2025 Kanishk Mehra S/o Ram Kumar Mehra Aged About 19 Years R/o Sakri Tehsil Sakri, Dist. - Bilaspur Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1. State of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department of Skill Development, Technical Education And Employment, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhavan, Nava Raipur, Raipur Chhattisgarh 2. Bhilai Institute of Technology Through Principal, Durg Chhattisgarh 3. Chhattisgarh Swami Vivekanand Technical University Through Registrar, Bhilai, Chhattisgarh 4. All India Council For Technical Education New Delhi 5. University Grants Commission New Delhi 6. Chhattisgarh Directorate Of Technical Education Indrawati Bhavan, 492101, Sector 19, Kotara Bhantha, Atal Nagar - Nava Raipur, Chhattisgarh ...Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Mr. Sumit Singh, Advocate. For Respondent/State : Mr. Shashank Thakur, Deputy Advocate General. For Respondent No. 2 : Mr. Neeraj Choubey, Advocate. For respective respondents : Mr. Ajit Kumar Singh, Advocate. BRIJMOHAN MORLE Digitally signed by BRIJMOHAN MORLE Date: 2025.08.19 11:08:02 +0530 2 Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru , Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 18.08.2025 1. Heard Mr. Sumit Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. Shashank Thakur, learned Deputy Advocate General, appearing for the State, Mr. Neeraj Choubey, learned counsel, appearing for respondent No. 2 and Mr. Ajit Kumar Singh, learned counsel, appearing for respective respondents. 2. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner with the following prayers: “10.1 To direct the respondent No. 2 to allow the petitioner to impart his education in B.tech (Computer Science) by providing him admission in its institute; 10.2 Any other relief deemed fit in the facts and circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice” 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is a citizen of India and is entitled to all the rights guaranteed under the Constitution of India and the laws made thereunder. It is contended that in the year 2000, the father of the petitioner, who was working as a Driver in the State judiciary of the erstwhile State of Madhya Pradesh, migrated to the newly created State of Chhattisgarh after the reorganization of the State of Madhya Pradesh. It is further submitted that the father of the petitioner belongs to the ‘Mehra’ community, which 3 is recognized as a Scheduled Caste in the State of Madhya Pradesh, and accordingly, he was issued a caste certificate by the competent authority of the said State. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would further urge that the petitioner was born in the year 2007 in the State of Chhattisgarh and pursued his entire education — right from pre-school, middle school and higher secondary school — in the State of Chhattisgarh with commendable academic performance. The petitioner, having developed an interest in computer sciences, prepared diligently for the entrance examination with the objective of pursuing a professional degree course in engineering. Owing to his persistent efforts, the petitioner successfully cleared the admission test and secured a place in the merit list at Sl.No. 130 for admission to B.Tech (Computer Science) in the institute run by respondent No. 2. It is submitted that thereafter, the petitioner completed all requisite admission formalities including submission of documents and deposit of admission fees. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has expressed serious grievance that notwithstanding the petitioner’s meritorious performance and fulfillment of admission formalities, he was orally informed at the final stage that his admission could not be granted on the ground that the caste certificate produced by him was issued by the State of Madhya Pradesh and not by the State of Chhattisgarh. It is contended that such a course of action amounts to arbitrary denial of admission after the petitioner had already paid fees and produced requisite 4 documents. He would further submit that the petitioner made several efforts to obtain clarification by contacting the authorities of respondent No. 2 both telephonically and through e-mail, but his queries remained unanswered, thereby compelling the petitioner to invoke the writ jurisdiction of this Court. 6. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the State as well as for respondent No. 2 submit that the petitioner, in his admission form, specifically claimed to be a domicile resident of Chhattisgarh. Once the petitioner claimed domicile of Chhattisgarh, it was mandatory for him to produce a caste certificate issued by the competent authority of the State of Chhattisgarh. Since the petitioner failed to do so and instead relied on a caste certificate issued by the State of Madhya Pradesh, he did not fulfill the essential eligibility condition. It is, therefore, argued that the action of the respondent-Institute is in strict compliance with the prescribed norms and that the writ petition itself is not maintainable. 7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and carefully perused the pleadings as well as documents annexed to the petition. 8. The legal position in this regard is well settled. A caste/community recognized as Scheduled Caste in one State may not necessarily be recognized as Scheduled Caste in another State. More importantly, even if the caste is recognized in both States, a certificate issued by the competent authority of one State cannot automatically confer benefits in another State. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Action Committee on Issue of Caste Certificate to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes in 5 the State of Maharashtra v. Union of India, reported in (1994) 5 SCC 244 and in Bir Singh v. Delhi Jal Board, reported in (2018) 10 SCC 312 has categorically held that a person who migrates from one State to another cannot claim the benefit of reservation in the migrated State on the basis of a caste certificate issued in the original State, unless such certificate is duly recognized and re-validated by the competent authority of the State where benefit is sought. 9. In the present case, the petitioner has admittedly produced a caste certificate issued by the State of Madhya Pradesh while simultaneously claiming domicile of Chhattisgarh. The governing rules require that in order to avail reservation benefits in the State of Chhattisgarh, the caste certificate must necessarily be issued by the competent authority of Chhattisgarh. The petitioner has not produced such a certificate. Consequently, the action of respondent No. 2 in declining admission to the petitioner on the reserved category seat cannot be said to be either arbitrary or illegal. The plea of violation of fundamental rights is also misconceived, as the denial is based on statutory requirements which the petitioner has failed to satisfy. 10. Accordingly, finding no substance in the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner, the writ petition stands dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Brijmohan