Post-Marriage Migration Doesn't Divest Women Of Reservation Benefits If Caste Is Recognized In Both States: MP High Court

The Madhya Pradesh High Court has held that women candidates who were originally residents of another State and later shifted to MP upon their marriage, are not to be treated as migrants for all service and reservation-related purposes and shall be considered as domiciled residents of the State. The bench of Justice Jai Kumar Pillai observed,"In the present case, although the petitioners were originally residents of another State, upon their marriage to permanent resident of the State of Madhya Pradesh, they are not to be treated as migrants and for all service and reservation-related purposes, they shall be reckoned as domiciled residents of the State of Madhya Pradesh, subject to fulfillment of the prescribed statutory requirements".Multiple writ petitions were filed by women candidates challenging the orders of the respondent authorities cancelling their candidature in different selection processes for appointment to the post of Uchha Madhyamik Shikshak (different streams). Per the facts of the case, the petitioners, before their marriage, resided in another state and belonged to a reserved class community, for which valid Other Backwards Class certificate/SC/ST caste certificates, were issued by a competent authority. Post their marriage, they permanently shifted to Madhya Pradesh and were issued a domicile certificate following the prevailing Government police and circulars. After acquiring the domicile status, the petitioners claimed entitlement to all statutory and constitutional benefits available to the members of the said reservation class in the State. Per the petitioners, they possessed the requisite educational qualifications needed under the applicable Recruitment Rules governing the teaching cadre. Pursuant to the advertisement issued by the Competent Examining Authority, applications were invited for appointment to the post of Uchha Madhyamik Shikshak (different streams). The petitioners applied under the respective SC/ST/OBC category, participated in the selection process, qualified for the written examination on merit and were called for document verification.At the last stage of the verification, the petitioners contended that their candidature was cancelled without the issuance of any showcause notice merely because the caste certificate was not issued by the State of MP, thereby resulting in the denial of reservation benefits. The State submitted that though the petitioners qualified for the High School Teacher Eligibility Test-2018, they failed to provide a valid caste certificate issued by the State of Madhya Pradesh and had falsely declared themselves as domicile of MP. The tensildar had rightly dismissed their applications for caste certificates. The court held that the benefit of reservation can be extended only to those who possessed a valid domicile certificate issued by the State of MP. In the present case, the court noted that the petitioners were residents of another state and permanently shifted to Madhya Pradesh post their marriage. Therefore, the bench held that the said women should not be treated as migrants but should be treated as domiciled residents for all service and reservation-related purposes. The court further noted that the candidates were governed under the Madhya Pradesh School Education Service (Teaching Cadre) Service Conditions and Recruitment Rules, 2018, which was implemented on July 1, 2018. The advertisement in the present case was issued under the said Rules of 2018. The court, upon examination of the said Rules of 2018, observed that there was no specific or clear clause barring the candidates who possessed a caste certificate issued by a competent authority of another State. It noted, "this Court is of the considered opinion that in absence of any express condition of ineligibility, the matter necessarily stands on a different footing. In such circumstances, the Recruiting Authority is required to undertake an examination as to whether the caste or community to which the petitioners belong is recognized as a reserved category in both the State from which the Caste Certificate was originally issued and the State of Madhya Pradesh where they have been married". Therefore, the court held that if the caste or community of the petitioners falls under the same reserved category in both the State then merely because the certificate was issued by another State would not make the petitioners ineligible for consideration, without any express clause barring the same. The court referred to the case of Dr. Alka Singh v. State of M.P 2012 (III) MPWN 84, wherein a lady belonging to the OBC caste, who shifted to another State post her marriage, cannot be treated as a migrated person merely on account of marriage. Further, relying on the case of Bedanga Talukdar v. Saifudaullah Khan (2011) 12 SCC 85, the bench emphasized that the terms and conditions mentioned in the advertisement cannot be relaxed or deviated from unless such power is expressly reserved. In the...

Post-Marriage Migration Doesn't Divest Women Of Reservation Benefits If Caste Is Recognized In Both States: MP High Court

Jayanti Pahwa

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Jayanti Pahwa

Post-Marriage Migration Doesn't Divest Women Of Reservation Benefits If Caste Is Recognized In Both States: MP High Court

Jayanti Pahwa

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Jayanti Pahwa

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers