2026:UHC:4120 HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR TIWARI Writ Petition Service Single No. 2557 of 2019 25 May, 2026 Ygoendra Pratap Singh --Petitioner Versus State of Uttarakhand and others --Respondents ------------------------------------------------------------------- Presence:- Mr. Jitendra Chaudhary, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Rakesh Singh Kunwar , Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State of Uttarakhand. Mr. Mukesh Kapruwan, Advocate for respondent no. 6. ------------------------------------------------------------------- JUDGMENT Respondent no. 6 was born on 15.04.1990 and he was issued a caste certificate by Tehsildar, Sakaldeeha, District Chandauli (U.P.) on 11.09.2015, whereby he was declared to be Scheduled Caste of State of Uttar Pradesh. He thereafter obtained another Caste Certificate from Tehsildar, Doiwala, District Dehradun in State of Uttarakhand, on 14.12.2016. On the strength of Caste Certificate dated 11.09.2015, issued by Tehsildar, Sakaldeeha, District Chandauli (U.P.), respondent no. 6 was appointed as Forest Guard against a vacancy reserved for Scheduled Caste of Uttarakhand. Appointment given to respondent no. 6, however, was cancelled by the competent authority in 2017; which was challenged by him in WPSS No. 1017 of 2017, which was disposed of with liberty to him to approach the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests, 1 2026:UHC:4120 who shall examine the matter and pass appropriate order, within six weeks. The Chief Conservator of Forests, vide order dated 24.08.2019, has upheld the appointment given to respondent no. 6 on the strength of caste certificate issued by State of U.P. on 11.09.2015. Petitioner has challenged the said order in this writ petition. 2. Petitioner contends that he also participated in the selection in which respondent no. 6 was selected and appointed; since respondent no. 6 wrongly obtained appointment based on caste certificate issued from State of U.P., therefore, selection and appointment of respondent no. 6 is liable to be set aside. 3. The facts on which there is no dispute is that State of origin of respondent no. 6 is Successor State of Uttar Pradesh, as he belongs to District Chandauli. It is also not in dispute that respondent no. 6 was issued a Certificate on 11.09.2015, declaring him to be Scheduled Caste of State of Uttar Pradesh, by Tehsildar Sakaldeeha (Chandauli). 4. Learned counsel for respondent no. 6 submits that the Caste Certificate, issued by competent authority in State of U.P. in favour of his client, was cancelled on his request and thereafter he was issued another Caste Certificate by Tehsildar, Doiwala in District Dehradun. He, however, could not show any document in support of the contention that the Caste Certificate issued in favour of respondent no. 6 in 2015 was subsequently cancelled by the competent authority 2 2026:UHC:4120 in State of Uttar Pradesh. 5. Learned counsel for respondent no. 6 contends that father of respondent no. 6 was serving as Chaukidar in Forest Department in District Dehradun since 1980 and respondent no. 6 was born and bought up at Dehradun. 6. This contention, however, is disputed by Mr. Jitendra Chaudhary, learned counsel appearing for petitioner, who submits that birth place of respondent no. 6 is Tehsil Sakaldeeha, District Chandauli in State of U.P. and Caste Certificate was also issued in his favour by Tehsildar of that Tehsil in District Chandauli in 2015. 7. The question, which falls for consideration, is whether a person belonging to Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe can claim reservation in a State other than the State of his origin. In other words, whether benefit of reservation can be availed in the State where such person migrates for employment or some other purpose. 8. A Division Bench of this Court in WPSB No. 297 of 2007 (Smt. Ranjana Kumari v. State of Uttaranchal and another) while dealing with similar question held as under:- “7. Petitioner produced a caste certificate, showing that she is wife of a gentleman residing at Dehradun, and that, she belongs to Valmiki caste, which is a Scheduled Caste of the State. There is no dispute that the petitioner is daughter of a person who belongs to Valmiki caste. Accordingly, there is also no dispute that the petitioner belongs to Valmiki caste. The father of the petitioner is, however, a resident of the State of Punjab. In such view of the matter, petitioner is also a Scheduled Caste of the 3 2026:UHC:4120 State of Punjab. Petitioner has migrated to the State of Uttarakhand after having had married a resident of this State. 8. It is being contended that since she is thus married and, accordingly, is permanently residing in this State and since Valmiki caste is also a Scheduled Caste for the State of Uttarakhand, she should be regarded as a Scheduled Caste of this State. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon a judgment of a Division Bench of this Court, rendered in the case of Jyoti Bala v. State of Uttarakhand, reported in 2009 (1) U.D, 1, for the proposition that the petitioner is entitled to a caste certificate, showing that she belongs to Scheduled Caste of this State. The judgment, referred to above, deals with domicile certificate and addresses the issue, principally, on Sections 15 and 16 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, proceeding on the basis that the said sections apply to Hindus. The fact remains that in terms of the provisions of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, the said sections do not apply to Hindus. 10. Be that as it may, the said judgment had and has no bearing in the matter of grant of a Scheduled Caste certificate. The right of a Scheduled Caste is created on the date he or she is born. Since that right is affixed with the birth of the person, the same is affixed with the State in which such right has accrued. Petitioner, therefore, as a member of Scheduled Caste community, acquired rights applicable to members of the Scheduled Caste community of the State of Punjab on and simultaneously with her birth in Punjab. The moment she migrated to the State of Uttarakhand, whether on being married or otherwise, she did not bring with her the right that she acquired in the State of Punjab. So far as the State of Uttarakhand is concerned, she never acquired any such right.” 9. The judgment rendered by Division Bench in the case of Smt. Ranjana Kumari (supra) was affirmed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No(s) 8425 of 2013. Para 4 of the said judgment is reproduced below:- “4. Two Constitution Bench judgments of this Court in Marri Chandra Shekhar Rao v. Dean, Seth G.S. Medical College & Ors. and Action Committee on Issue of Caste Certificate to Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes in the State of Maharashtra v. Union of India & Anr. 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 4 2026:UHC:4120 in Marri Chandra Shekhar Rao (supra) and Action Committee (supra). 10. This Court, vide judgment dated 12.11.2025, rendered in WPSS No. 462 of 2025 relied upon the aforesaid judgment and held as under:- “14. From perusal of the judgments referred to above, it is apparent that benefit of reservation can be availed of by a person only in the State to which he/she originally belonged and upon migration to some other State, for whatever reason, one would not be entitled to reservation in State Services of State to which he/she migrates. This view is supported by the 11 2025:UHC:9991 judgment dated 29.08.2011 rendered by Division Bench of this Court in WPSB No. 297 of 2007, which was affirmed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 8425 of 2013, vide judgment dated 02.11.2018.” 11. The ratio of the aforesaid judgments applies to the facts of the present case also. Admittedly, Uttar Pradesh is the State of origin in respect of respondent no. 6 and he was also issued a Caste Certificate from that State. There is nothing on record to show that the Caste Certificate issued by State of Uttar Pradesh is withdrawn or cancelled. Merely because respondent no. 6 managed to obtain a caste certificate, issued in his favour by competent authority in State of Uttarakhand will not alter his original status and his origin continues to remain in State of Uttar Pradesh. Law is well settled that benefit of reservation is available to a person only in his State of origin and not in the State to which he/she migrates. Moreover, no one can have two States of origin. Since petitioner was earlier issued caste certificate by State of U.P., therefore, his State of origin will be deemed to be Uttar Pradesh and not Uttarakhand. 5 2026:UHC:4120 12. Thus viewed, the order dated 24.08.2019, passed by Principal Chief Conservator of Forests, impugned in this writ petition is unsustainable in the eyes of law. 13. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 24.08.2019 is set aside. The writ petition is allowed and the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests is directed to re-consider the issue in the light of law declared by Hon’ble Supreme Court on the point. In the event, the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests decides against the respondent no. 6, then petitioner shall be at liberty to stake claim for appointment by making representation to the competent authority, which shall be dealt with, as per law. (Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.) 25 May, 2026 Navin 6