2026:HHC:30397 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 15366 of 2024 Decided on: 22 .07 .2026 Amandeep Kaur … Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and another … Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 ___________________________________________________________________ For the petitioner : Mr. R.K. Gautam, Senior Advocate with Mr. Sahil Dixit, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. Rajpal Thakur, Additional Advocate General. : Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral) By way of this writ petition, the petitioner has approached this Court inter alia praying for the following reliefs:- “i) A writ of Certiorari may kindly be issued for quashing the action of respondents refusing the appointment to the petitioner for the post of TGT (Arts) on the ground "not eligible parentally belongs to Punjab” whereas otherwise she was eligible to be appointed. ii) Writ of Certiorari may kindly be issued to quash the instructions Annexure P-8 or any other such instructions/orders/notifications issued by the respondents. iii) Writ of mandamus may be issued directing the to the respondents to offer appointment petitioner on the basis of counselling held on 09.11.2023 to 15.11.2023 to the post of TGT (Arts). 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2026:HHC:30397 iv) That since the similar matters stand dealt with by the Division Bench of this Hon'ble Court therefore it is in the interest of justice that the matter may kindly be referred and placed before the Hon'ble Larger Bench of this Hon'ble Court..” 2. The case of the petitioner is that she belongs to the State of Punjab and is a Scheduled Caste by birth of that State. Thereafter, she got married in the State of Himachal Pradesh, and the husband of the petitioner also belongs to a Scheduled Caste in the State of Himachal Pradesh. Her grievance is that despite a certificate of bonafide Himachali as well as a Scheduled Caste of the State of Himachal Pradesh having been issued to the petitioner, her candidature for the post of TGT (Arts) has been rejected on the ground that the petitioner is not eligible for appointment against the Scheduled Caste category, as, by birth, she belongs to a Scheduled Caste of the State of Punjab. 3. Though, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that though the petitioner originally was a Scheduled Caste from the State of Punjab, but subsequently, as she was married to a Scheduled Caste family in the State of Himachal Pradesh, therefore, the denial of this status to her in the State of Himachal Pradesh is bad, however, this Court does not concur with the submission of learned Senior Counsel. 3 2026:HHC:30397 4. It has been held in more than one judgment by this Court that the status of Scheduled Caste, Scheduled Tribe, or Other Backward Classes (OBC) is acquired by a person by birth, and the status acquired by birth in one State cannot be claimed in another State. It has also been held by this Court that a lady who does not hail from the State of Himachal but belongs to a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe of another State, by virtue of being married in the State of Himachal Pradesh to a family which belongs to a Scheduled Caste category of the State of Himachal Pradesh, cannot stake any right to be a Scheduled Caste of the State of Himachal Pradesh. 5. This Court, in CWP No. 11069 of 2024, titled Smt. Sarvjeet Saini vs. The State of Himachal Pradsh and Others, by placing reliance upon the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, has held as under:- “8. In fact this issue is no more res-intrgra and there are judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, which clinch the issue. 9. A Five Judge Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Action Committee on Issue of Caste Certificate to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes in the State of Maharashtra and Another, (1994) 5 Supreme Court Cases 244,|while dealing with the interpretation of Articles 341 and 342 of the Constitution of India and while deciding the question that where a person belonging to a caste or tribe specified for the purposes of the 4 2026:HHC:30397 Constitution to be Scheduled Caste, a Schedule Tribe in relation to State A, migrates to State B; whereas caste or tribe with same nomenclature is specified for the purposes of the Constitution to be a Scheduled Caste or Schedule Tribe in relation to that State B, will that person entitled to claim, be the privileges and benefits admissible to person belonging to Schedule Caste and/or Schedule Tribe' answered the same as under:- "16. We may add that considerations for specifying a particular caste or tribe or class for inclusion in the list of Scheduled Castes/Schedule Tribes or backward classes in a given State would depend on the nature and extent of disadvantages and social hardships suffered by that caste, tribe or class in that State which may be totally non-est in another State to which persons belonging thereto may migrate. Coincidentally it may be that a caste or tribe bearing the same nomenclature is specified in two States but the considerations on the basis of which they have been specified may be totally different. So also the degree of disadvantages of various elements which constitute the input for specification may also be totally different. Therefore, merely because a given caste is specified in State A as a Scheduled Caste does not necessarily mean that if there be another caste bearing the same nomenclature in another State the person belonging to the former would be entitled to the fights, privileges and benefits admissible to a member of the Scheduled Caste of the latter State "for the purposes of this Constitution". This is an aspect which has to be kept in mind and which was very much 5 2026:HHC:30397 in the minds of the Constitution-makers as is evident from the choice of language of Articles 341 and 342 of the Constitution. That is why in answer to a question by Mr. Jaipal Singh, Dr. Ambedkar answered as under: "He asked me another question and it was this. Supposing a member of a Scheduled Tribe living in a tribal area migrates to another part of the territory of India, which is outside both the scheduled area and the tribal area, will he be able to claim from the local Government, within whose jurisdiction he may be residing the same privileges which he would be entitled to when he is residing within the scheduled area or within the tribal area? It is a difficult question for me to answer. If that matter is agitated in quarters where a decision on a matter like this would lie, we would certainly be able to give some answer to the question in the form of some clause in this Constitution. But so far as the present Constitution stands, a member of a Scheduled Tribe going outside the scheduled area or tribal area would certainly not be entitled to carry with him the privileges that he is entitled to when he is residing in a scheduled area or a tribal area. So far as I can see, it will be practicably impossible to enforce the provisions that apply to tribal areas or scheduled areas, in areas other than those which are covered by them....... Relying on this statement the Constitution Bench ruled that the petitioner was not entitled to admission to the medical college on the basis that he belonged to a Scheduled Tribe in 6 2026:HHC:30397 the State of his origin. 17. Lastly the Constitution Bench referred to the cleavage in the views of different High Courts on the interpretation of Articles 341 and 342 of the Constitution and the consequential orders passed by the Government of India and the State Governments. It referred to the two decisions of the Gujarat High Court as well as the decision of the Karnataka High Court which place the interpretation canvassed before us by Mr. Raju Ramachandran. The other side referred to the decisions of the Orissa High Court in K. Appa Rao v. Director of Posts & Telegraphs, Orissa, the decision of the Full Bench of the Bombay High Court in M.S. Malathi v. Commissioner, Nagpur Division" and the decision of the Punjab & Haryana High Court in V.B. Singh v. State of Punjab12 which take the contrary view canvassed before us by the respondents. All these decisions were considered by the Constitution Bench which agreed with the latter view. It upheld the view expressed in the communication dated 222-1985 and negatived the challenge of the petitioner that the said view was ultra vires Articles 14, 15, 16 or 21. It, however, observed that in the facts and circumstances of the case and having regard to the fact that the petitioner student's career was involved it directed the authorities to consider whether the petitioner was a 'Goudi' and if yes, the institution may consider if he can be allowed to complete his studies in the institution. However, on the interpretation of the relevant provisions of the Constitution this Court was clear in its view that legally speaking he was not 7 2026:HHC:30397 entitled to admission in the Scheduled Tribe quota. 18. We are in respectful agreement with the above view expressed by the Constitution Bench in the aforesaid decision. All the points which were canvassed before us by Mr Raju Ramachandran were also canvassed by him in the said matter. They were negatived by the Constitution Bench. Nothing has been pointed out to persuade us to think that the view taken by the Constitution Bench requires reconsideration by a larger Bench. In fact we are in complete agreement with the interpretation placed on the various provisions of the Constitution, in particular Articles 341 and 342 thereof, in the said judgment. We, therefore,, see no merit in this writ petition and dismiss the same. However, we make no order as to costs. 10. This was followed by another Five Judge Bench Judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Bir Singh vs. Delhi Jal Board and others, (2018) 10 Supreme Court Cases 312, in which Hon’ble Supreme Court after referring to its earlier adjudication on the issue including (1994) 5 Supreme Court Cases (supra) 244 held as under:- "34. Unhesitatingly, therefore, it can be said that a person belonging to a Scheduled Caste in one State cannot be deemed to be a Scheduled Caste person in relation to any other State to which he migrates for the purpose of employment or education. The expressions "in relation to that State or Union Territory" and "for the purpose of this Constitution" used in Articles 341 and 342 of the Constitution o India would mean that the benefits of 8 2026:HHC:30397 reservation provided for by the Constitution would stand confined to the geographical territories of a State/ Union Territory in respect of which the lists of Scheduled Castes/ Scheduled Tribes have been notified by the Presidential Orders issued from time to time. A person notified as a Scheduled Caste in State. 'A' cannot claim the same status in another State on the basis that he is declared as a Scheduled Caste in State ‘A’.” 11. Again in Bhadar Ram (dead) Through Legal Representatives vs. Jassa Ram and others, (2022) 4 Supreme Court Cases 259, Hon’ble Supreme Court has reiterated this principle and held as under:- “16. We may add that considerations for specifying a particular caste or tribe or class for inclusion in the list of Scheduled Castes/Schedule Tribes or backward classes in a given State would depend on the nature and extent of disadvantages and social hardships suffered by that caste, tribe or class in that State which may be totally non-est in another State to which persons belonging thereto may migrate. Coincidentally it may be that a caste or tribe bearing the same nomenclature is specified in two States but the considerations on the basis of which they have been specified may be totally different. So also the degree of disadvantages of various elements which constitute the input for specification may also be totally different. Therefore, merely because a given caste is specified in State A as a Scheduled Caste does not necessarily mean that if there be another caste bearing the same nomenclature in another State the person 9 2026:HHC:30397 belonging to the former would be entitled to the rights, privileges and benefits admissible to a member of the Scheduled Caste of the latter State "for the purposes of this Constitution". This is an aspect which has to be kept in mind and which was very much in the minds of the Constitution makers as is evident from the choice of language of Articles 341 and 342 of the Constitution. That is why in answer to a question by Mr. Jaipal Singh, Dr Ambedkar answered as under: "He asked me another question and it was this. Supposing a member of a Scheduled Tribe living in a tribal area migrates to another part of the territory of India, which is outside both the scheduled area and the tribal area, will he be able to claim from the local Government, within whose jurisdiction he may be residing the same privileges which he would be entitled to when he is residing within the scheduled area or within the tribal area? It is a difficult question for me to answer. If that matter is agitated in quarters where a decision on a matter like this would lie, we would certainly be able to give some answer to the question in the form of some clause in this Constitution. But so far as the present Constitution stands, a member of a Scheduled Tribe going outside the scheduled area or tribal area would certainly not be entitled to carry with him the privileges that he is entitled to when he is residing in a scheduled area or a tribal area. So far as I can see, it will be practicably impossible to enforce the provisions that apply to tribal areas or scheduled areas, 10 2026:HHC:30397 in areas other than those which are covered by them.......” Relying on this statement the Constitution Bench ruled that the petitioner was not entitled to admission to the medical college on the basis that he belonged to a Scheduled Tribe in the State of his origin.” 17. The decision of this Court in the case of Action Committee on Issue of Caste Certificate to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes in the State of Maharashtra and Another (supra) shall be applicable with full force to the facts of the present case also. The submission on behalf of the appellant original defendant that the said decision shall not be applicable to the facts of the case on hand as in that case the Court was considering the issue with respect to employment, education and in the present case dispute is with respect to sale /sale of property has no substance and cannot be accepted. 18. The reasoning given by this Court in the case of Action Committee on Issue of Caste Certificate to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes in the State of Maharashtra and Another (supra) are on interpretation and on a plain reading of Clause I of Articles 341 and 342 of the Constitution of India, which are referred to hereinabove. We see no reason to restrict the applicability of the decision of this Court in the case of Action Committee on Issue of Caste Certificate to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes in the State of Maharashtra and Another (supra) only with respect to employment, education or the like and not to make applicable the same with respect to purchase 11 2026:HHC:30397 and sale of the property in case of sale and purchase of the land belonging to a Scheduled Caste person in the State of Rajasthan and when the said land was allotted to the original land owner– Chuni Lal as Scheduled Caste landless person.” 12. Thus, it is apparent and evident that it is settled law that a person belonging to an SC, ST or OBC category in one State cannot be deemed to be an SC, ST or OBC in relation to any other State, to which he or she migrates for the purpose of employment or education or otherwise nor he or she can claim the benefit in other State for any reason whatsoever. 13. Simply because, the petitioner has been issued a bonafide Himachali Certificate, this is no ground for treating her as an OBC for the State of Himachal Pradesh. The status of reservation be it Scheduled Caste, Scheduled Tribe or OBC is conferred on the basis of the constitutional provisions and the constitutional provisions cannot be undone or outreached by certificates like a bonafide Himachali Certificate. The status of OBC has been conferred upon the petitioner from her parental lineage as she happens to be the daughter of a father, who is from an OBC caste as declared in the State of Punjab. She can enjoy the status of an OBC only in the State of Punjab and upon migration or marriage or issuance of a bonafide Himachali Certificate, she cannot claim the conferment of the status of an OBC of the State of Himachal Pradesh upon her even if the nomenclature of the caste is same or similar in the State of Punjab and Himachal Pradesh. 14. In the backdrop of the above discussions, as this Court 12 2026:HHC:30397 does not finds any infirmity in the impugned act of the respondents, this petition is dismissed. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, also stand disposed of.” This judgment has been upheld in appeal also by the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court. Therefore, in the light of the above settled legal position that a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe candidate of another State cannot claim the said status in the State of Himachal Pradesh, this writ petition being devoid of merit is dismissed. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any also stand disposed of accordingly. (Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge July 22 , 2026 (narender)