2026:HHC:22608 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 11076 of 2024 Decided on: 17.06.2026 Smt. Kalpna Devi .…Petitioner Versus The State of Himachal Pradesh and others …Respondents Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioner: Mr. Onkar Jairath, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Pushpinder Jaswal, Additional Advocate General. Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral): By way of this writ petition, the petitioner has inter alia prayed for the following reliefs:- “That the Writ in the nature of Certiorari may kindly be issued quashing and setting aside the impugned Office Order dated 16.12.2023. (Annexure P-8), whereby the candidature of the Petitioner for the appointment against the post of TGT under SC Category has been rejected on account of the fact that she belongs to reserved category in the State of Punjab. 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2026:HHC:22608 ii. That writ in the nature of mandamus may very kindly be issued, directing the respondents to consider the candidature of the Petitioner for the post of TGT against the post reserved for SC Category by recognizing her caste as reserved category in the State of Himachal Pradesh and Respondents be further directed to offer her the appointment as TGT Teacher.” 2. The case of the petitioner is that she hails from village Kot Patial, District Hoshiarpur, Una and by birth, she belongs to Scheduled Caste category of the State of Punjab. It is further her case that she was married to one Sanjeev Kumar in the year 2008, who is a permanent resident of village and Post office Marwari, Tehsil Amb, District Una, H.P. It is further the case of the petitioner that as her spouse is a Himachali resident, she has been issued bonafide Himachali certificate. According to the petitioner, as she is a Scheduled Caste by birth and the caste, to which, she belongs, is Scheduled Caste both in the State of Punjab as well as in the State of Himachal Pradesh, she was duly issued a Scheduled Caste certificate by the Tehsildar Amb, District Una, copy whereof is appended with the petition as Annexure P-5. It is further her case that on the strength of said certificate, she participated in the process for selection against the post of TGT in the Elementary Education Department, however, her name was not reflected in the selected candidates’ list for appointment against the 3 2026:HHC:22608 post of TGT, being offered on batch wise basis to the candidates of 2011 batch. According to the petitioner, information which was sought by her under the Right to Information Act, revealed that her candidature has been ignored on the ground that as originally she did not belong to a schedule caste category of the State of Himachal Pradesh, therefore, she has not been offered appointment against the post reserved for the Scheduled Caste category candidates. 3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has argued that in light of the fact that the petitioner belongs to Scheduled Caste category in the State of Punjab and said caste is also recognized as a Scheduled Caste in the State of Himachal Pradesh, the act of the respondent-Department of not considering her as a Scheduled Caste candidate is not sustainable in law. 4. On the other hand, learned Additional Advocate General has submitted that in light of the fact that the petitioner by birth belongs to the State of Punjab, the Scheduled Caste status conferred upon her by the State of Punjab is good only as far as that State is concerned and she cannot take advantage of said fact for appointment in the State of Himachal Pradesh. Learned Additional Advocate General also argued that obtaining of a Scheduled Caste certificate by the petitioner in the State of Himachal Pradesh, may be on the strength of the fact that her husband also belongs to Scheduled Caste category in the State of Himachal Pradesh, also does 4 2026:HHC:22608 not improve the case of the petitioner because she, being not a Scheduled Caste by birth of the State of Himachal Pradesh, is not entitled for the benefit of scheduled caste in the State of Himachal Pradesh. Learned Additional Advocate General has placed reliance on a recent judgment of Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court passed in LPA No. 701 of 2025, titled as Jaswinder Kaur vs. State of H.P. and others and other connected matters, decided on 27.05.2026, to substantiate his contentions. 5. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and also carefully gone through the pleadings as well as documents on record. 6. It is not in dispute that the petitioner by birth is not a Scheduled Caste of the State of Himachal Pradesh. It is her own case that, by birth, she is a Scheduled Caste of State of Punjab. That being the case, simply because the petitioner was married in the State of Himachal Pradesh and because her husband also happens to be a member of the Scheduled Caste category of the State of Himachal Pradesh, this does not confer any right upon her of gaining the status of Scheduled Caste, as far as the State of Himachal Pradesh is concerned. It is settled law that a lady, who is not a Scheduled Caste by birth of the State of Himachal Pradesh, cannot claim the benefit of the Scheduled Caste if she is married in a Scheduled Caste family of the State of Himachal Pradesh. It is also settled law that Scheduled Caste of one State cannot claim advantage of said certificate in other State 5 2026:HHC:22608 simply because the nomenclature her caste is common in both the States. Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court in LPA No. 701 of 2025, titled as Jaswinder Kaur vs. State of H.P. and others and other connected matters, decided on 27.05.2026, relied upon by learned Additional Advocate General has been pleased to reiterate this legal position and the relevant part of the judgment is being quoted herein below:- “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 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 6 2026:HHC:22608 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 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:- 7 2026:HHC:22608 "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." 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. 8 2026:HHC:22608 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." 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.” 9 2026:HHC:22608 7. Learned Counsel for the petitioner could not dispute the legal position as stands enunciated by Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court. In light of the above discussion, as no relief, as prayed for by the petitioner, can be granted to her, this petition is dismissed. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, also stand disposed of accordingly. (Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge June 17, 2026 (narender)