( 2026:HHC:17155 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 7621/2026 Decided on: 15.05.2026 Anu Rani …Petitioner Versus State of H.P. & Ors. .…Respondents. ………………………………………………………………………………. Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioner: Mr. Sudhir Thakur, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Somesh Sharma, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General with Ms. Seema Sharma Deputy Advocate General for respondents No.1, 2 & 4. Mr. Surender Sharma, Advocate for respondent No.3. Jyotsna Rewal Dua, J. Notice. Ms. Seema Sharma, learned Deputy Advocate General and Mr. Surender Sharma, learned counsel, accept notice on behalf of respondents No.1, 2 & 4 and 3, respectively. 2. Petitioner presented her nomination for election to the office of Block Development Council for Ward No.7 (reserved for 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 ( 2026:HHC:17155 ) Scheduled Caste category), Khari Ogli Gram Panchayat, Kala Amb, Tehsil Nahan, District Sirmour, in terms of the election programme notified on 29.04.2026 by respondent No.3 for the conduct of general elections to the Panchayati Raj Institutions in the respondent-State. Petitioner’s nomination was rejected by respondent No.2 vide Annexure P-5 dated 13.05.2026, primarily on the ground that the petitioner is a permanent resident of the State of Punjab and has been residing at Nahan, District Sirmour, H.P., after her marriage; As per the clarification issued by the Department of Panchayati Raj on 08.05.2026, the petitioner was not held eligible for Scheduled Caste reservation in the State of Himachal Pradesh, being a person who migrated from Uttarakhand after marriage. 3. Learned Senior Advocate for the petitioner submitted that, by birth, the petitioner is a resident of Village Mohamadpur, Post Office Barthal, Tehsil Chhachhrauli, District Yamunanagar, Haryana; Petitioner belongs to the Balmiki caste by birth, which is recognized as Scheduled Caste in the State of Haryana; Petitioner solemnized marriage with one Sh. Raj Kumar & thereafter migrated to the State of Himachal Pradesh; Petitioner’s husband also belongs to the Balmiki caste, which is recognized as Scheduled Caste in the State of Himachal Pradesh; Petitioner has been issued a bona fide Himachali Certificate as also a Scheduled Caste Certificate in the respondent- State of Himachal Pradesh. Learned Senior Advocate further 3 ( 2026:HHC:17155 ) submitted that the petitioner, having migrated to the State of Himachal Pradesh after solemnizing marriage with a person belonging to the Balmiki caste, i.e. the very caste to which the petitioner belongs to by birth, and the said caste having been recognized as Scheduled Caste in the State of Haryana and in the State of Himachal Pradesh, rejection of petitioner’s nomination by respondent No.2 was not in order; Respondent No.2 while rejecting petitioner’s nomination has in-turn relied upon a clarification dated 08.05.2026 issued by the Department of Panchayati Raj. The said clarification reads as under: - “I am directed to refer to your communication dated 23.04.2026, regarding issuance of Scheduled Caste certificate and eligibility for availing Scheduled Caste reservation in connection with PRI Elections, 2026. The matter was examined in consultation with the Law Department. The Law Department opined as under: In this context, it is stated that Sections 8(2) and 125 of the Himachal Pradesh Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 provide for reservation of seats and offices in Panchayats for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes in proportion to their population in the State. Further, as per Section 2(38) of the Act, the expression "Scheduled Cuxtes" shall have the same meaning as assigned to it under clause (24) of Article 366 of the Constitution of India. The Scheduled Castes are notified State-wise under the Constitution (Scheduled Castes) Order, 1950, as amended from time to time. It is a settled legal position that the status of Scheduled Caste is Stute-specific and does not automatically extend beyond the State for which it is notified. A person belonging to a Scheduled Caste in one State cannot claim the benefit of reservation in another State upon migration, including migration on account of marriage. In this regard, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in 4 ( 2026:HHC:17155 ) Marri Chandra Shekhar Rao vs. Dean, Seth G.S. Medical College (1990) 3 SCC 130, Action Committee vs. Union of India (1994) 5 SCC 244, and Bir Singh vs. Delhi Jal Board (2018) 10 SCC 312 has categorically held that such benefits are confined to the State of origin. The same position has been reiterated in recent judicial pronouncements, including the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh in Smt. Sita Saini vs. State of Madhya Pradesh (2025), wherein it has been held that even upon marriage and change of residence, a person cannot claim reservation benefits in the migrated State on the basis of caste status of the original State. The applicant, having migrated to the State of Himachal Pradesh after marriage. cannot claim the benefit of Scheduled Caste reservation in Himachal Pradesh on the basis of her caste status in the State of Uttarakhand, irrespective of whether the said caste is notified in Himachal Pradesh or not. You are therefore requested to take further necessary action Accordingly.” Learned Senior Advocate for the petitioner submitted that the aforesaid clarification is not in consonance with law laid down in Bir Singh Vs. Delhi Jal Board2. 4. This petition against rejection of petitioner’s nomination in the given facts cannot stricto-sensu be said to be maintainable in view of Section 175(1)(c) of the H.P. Panchayati Raj Act, 1994, as an aggrieved person against improper rejection of his/her nomination has the remedy of preferring an election petition. However, learned Senior Advocate for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner, in the 2 (2018) 10 SCC 312. 5 ( 2026:HHC:17155 ) present petition, is confining her challenge only to the clarification issued by respondent No.4 on 08.05.2026 (Annexure P-6), which has been followed by respondent No.2 while rejecting petitioner’s nomination and that too to the limited extent for urging petitioner’s prayer for grant of interim relief in this writ petition. The matter, therefore, has been heard only for this limited purpose. The clarification dated 08.05.2026 (Annexure P-6), which has been made the basis by respondent No.2 for rejecting petitioner’s nomination, is in turn based upon Marri Chandra Shekhar Rao Vs. Dean, Seth G.S. Medical College3, Action Committee Vs. Union of India4 and Bir Singh Vs. Delhi Jal Board5. The decision relied upon by the petitioner has, in fact, been relied upon by the respondents-State as well while issuing the clarification dated 08.05.2026. These decisions have also been taken note of in Subeena Sabri vs. State of H.P. & Ors.6 In Subeena Sabri6, the petitioner was born in State of Bihar and belonged to Ansari Caste, which had been declared as Other Backward Class (OBC) in State of Bihar. She married a bonafide resident of State of Himachal Pradesh, who belonged to a caste declared as OBC in State of Himachal Pradesh. Petitioner had been issued a Bonafide Himachali Certificate based upon her marriage and residence in the State of Himachal 3 (1990) 3 SCC 130 4 (1994) 5 SCC 244 5 (2018) 10 SCC 312 6CWP No.8043 of 2021 decided on 19.05.2022. 6 ( 2026:HHC:17155 ) Pradesh. She was not issued Certificate of eligibility for reservation of jobs for OBC. The issue for determination before the Court was whether the petitioner, by virtue of being married to a person belonging to the OBC category in Himachal Pradesh, or by inclusion of the original caste of the petitioner in the list of Other Backward Classes in Himachal Pradesh, was entitled to the issuance of a certificate of eligibility for reservation of job for the OBC category in the State of Himachal Pradesh. While deciding Subeena Sabri6, the Court also considered Ranjana Kumari Versus State of Uttarakhand and others7. In the said case, the appellant belonged to Valmiki Caste (Scheduled Caste) of State of Punjab. She married a person belonging to Valmiki Caste of Uttarakhand and migrated to that State. In State of Uttarakhand, under the Presidential Order ‘Valmiki’ is recognized as notified Scheduled Caste. State of Uttarakhand issued a certificate to the appellant. The High Court rejected appellant’s contention that she was a Scheduled Caste of State of Uttarakhand. Hon’ble Apex Court dismissed the appeal and affirmed the decision of the High Court as under:- “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 beause in the migrant State the same caste is recognised as Scheduled Caste, the migrant 7(2019) 15 SCC 664 7 ( 2026:HHC:17155 ) cannot be recognised 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. Subeena Sabri6 also noticed Bhadar Ram vs. Jassa Ram & others8, wherein above judgment was followed. The Court declined to grant relief to the petitioner and observed that the fact that petitioner (Subeena Sabri) is married in State of Himachal Pradesh to a person belonging to OBC and even the caste to which the petitioner belongs in the State of her origin, has been declared as OBC in State of Himachal Pradesh, cannot be held sufficient to carve out an exception of law as declared by Hon’ble Apex Court. After exhaustively deliberating over the issue and taking note of several precedents in timeline from the High Courts and from the Hon’ble Apex Court, the Division Bench held that the view taken in State of H.P. and Others vs. Smt. Naveen Kumari5 (relied upon in case of Pinki Bagga Vs. State of H.P. & Ors9.), was per incuriam. Relevant portion of the judgment reads as under:- “14. Thus, the Coordinate Bench of this Court, while partly allowing the Review Petition No. 47 of 2021 held paragraphs 6 to 8 thereof, per incuriam. However, it was held that since none of the judgments referred before it had dealt with a situation where a person having migrated from one State to another had married in 82022 (4) SCC 259 9 CWP No. 8181/2021 decided on 20.04.2022 8 ( 2026:HHC:17155 ) the migratee State and had been granted a bonafide resident certificate in that State, therefore, a person under such category could not be denied the benefit of having a certificate of SC/ST/OBC, as the case may be, in the migratee State. 15. With due deference to the judgment passed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in Naveen Kumari’s case (supra), we are not inclined to scribe to the view taken by the said bench, for the reasons that in Ranjana Kumari vs. State of Uttaranchal & others (Civil Appeal No. 8425 of 2013), a two Judges Bench of Hon’ble Supreme Court had referred to larger bench,the question as noticed above, which already was germane with the issue as noticed in Naveen Kumari (supra). 19. 19. In our considered view, in none of the judgments noticed by the Coordinate Bench of this court while deciding Review Petition No. 47 of 2021, scope for any exception was left. It cannot be overlooked that in all the cases the purpose was to protect the salutary principle enshrined in Articles 341 & 342 of the Constitution of India. To achieve such purpose, Hon’ble Apex Court repeatedly has held that migration for whatsoever reason, from one State to another, cannot be a sufficient ground for claiming benefit of being SC/ST/OBC in the migratee state. The objective criteria for declaration of a particular Caste or Tribe as SC/ST/OBC in one State is the specific level of backwardness, social disparage and economic disadvantages prevalent in such state. Though, one Caste notified as Scheduled Caste/ tribe/ OBC in one State may also find place in the list of notified Scheduled Caste/ Tribe/OBC in the other, but the same has not been held to be sufficient for claiming the benefit in other State by a person after migration for the reason that the degree of disadvantages of various elements which constitute the data for specification may be entirely different. The migrations be it voluntary or involuntary have been taken care of in the judgments passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, as noticed above. Thus, in our considered view, mere grant of a certificate of bona fide resident to a person by the migratee State after her marriage in such State cannot be an exception. The view taken by a Coordinate Bench in Review Petition No. 47 of 2021, titled State of H.P. & others Vs Navin Kumari to that effect, in our understanding, is per incuriam. 9 ( 2026:HHC:17155 ) 20. In the instant case, the facts that petitioner is married in the State of Himachal Pradesh to a person belonging to OBC and even the Caste to which the petitioner belonged in the State of her origin has been declared as a OBC in the State of Himachal Pradesh, cannot be held sufficient to carve out an exception to the mandate of law, as declared by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Marri Chandra Shekhar Rao vs. Deen, Seth G.S. Medical College and others 1990 (3) SCC, 130, Action Committee on issue of Caste Certificate to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes in the State of Maharashtra and another vs. Union of India and others, 1994 (5) SCC, 244 and Subhash Chandra and another vs. Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board and others 2009 (15) SCC, 458, Pankaj Kumar vs. State of Jharkhand & others, 2021 SCC (online) SC 616 and Ranjana Kumari Vs State of Uttaranchal 2019 (15) SCC 664.” Bir Singh2 affirms Marri Chandra Shekhar Rao3, holding that the benefit of reservation stands confined to geographical territories of State or Union Territory in respect of which lists of Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes have been notified by Presidential orders issued from time to time. Person notified as Scheduled Caste in State ’A’ cannot claim same status in another State. In view of above petitioner’s prayer for grant of interim relief on the ground that impugned clarification is violative of law, cannot be accepted. It is, however, made clear that the above prima-facie view has been given upon persistent insistence of learned Senior Advocate for the petitioner for grant of interim relief. The writ petition is dismissed in view of statutory remedy available to the petitioner for 10 ( 2026:HHC:17155 ) the redressal of her grievances in form of election petition against rejection of her nomination in view of Section 175(1)(c) of the H.P. Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 and H.P. Panchayati Raj (Election) Rules, 1994. Needless to clarify that observations made in the order shall remain confined to the adjudication of this writ petition restrictively argued for grant of interim relief to the extent indicated above. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. Jyotsna Rewal Dua Judge 15th May, 2026(rohit)