Person Migrating To Another State Can't Carry Scheduled Caste Status Even If Same Caste Is Recognised There: MP High Court

The Madhya Pradesh High Court has held that a person migrating from one State to another does not carry his caste status even if the caste is recognised as a Scheduled Caste in both States, observing that recognition of a particular caste as a Scheduled Caste in a State is based on social, economic, and educational backwardness faced by that caste in the home state. The bench of Justice Anand Singh Bahrawat observed; "a person, who migrates from one State to the other does not carry his caste status to the migrating State, even if the same caste is recognized as SC in both States... The recognition of a caste in a particular State as SC is directly relatable to social, economic and educational backwardness faced by that caste in the home State. This geographical, social and educational backwardness existing in the home State cannot necessarily be the same in the other State".The petitioner applied for the post of Anganwadi Worker as a member of the Scheduled Casts. Initially, another candidate was appointed by respondent no 4, Project Officer, prompting the petitioner to file an appeal before the Additional Collector, Sheopur. Thereafter, Kriti Sharma, respondent no 5, was appointed as Anganwadi Worker. This order was also challenged before the Additional Collector, Sheopur. Therafter, he allowed the application and directed appointment in favour of the petitioner. Aggrieved, respondent no 5, Kriti Sharma, filed an application before the Additional Commissioner, Morena, who set aside the order of the Additional Collector of Sheopur and directed a fresh appointment after granting both parties an opportunity to be heard. The counsel for the petitioner argued that the Collector had recorded a categorical finding that the SC certificate issued to the petitioner was valid throughout India and therefore the petitioner is entitled to 62.5 marks, which makes her more meritorious. The court examined Articles 341 and 342, which define the scope of Scheduled Castes and Tribes in relation to specific States and Union Territories. The court relied on the Supreme Court judgment in the case of Marri Chandra Shekhar Rao Vs. Dean, Seth G.S. Medical College [(1990) 3 SCC 130] and reiterated that the identification of caste as a scheduled cate in a particular state is based on disadvantages prevalent in that State, which may not exist in another State. The bench clarified that a person recognized as a member of a scheduled cate in one State does not automatically acquire the same status in another State. It further clarified that, except for certain historic migrations before 1950, individuals migrating to another State cannot claim reservation benefits on the basis of their Original State's caste certificate. The court observed that in the present case, the petitioner had migrated to Madhya Pradesh after marriage and possessed a caste certificate issued by Rajasthan. Therefore, she was not entitled to SC benefits in Madhya Pradesh. The court therefore directed the relevant authorities to conduct the appointment process for the post of Anganwadi worker strictly based on merit, without extending SC reservation benefits to the petitioner. The petitioner, other candidates and the respondent shall be given the opportunity for a personal hearing before a final decision. The bench, while dismissing the petitioner, directed the authorities to complete this process within 3 months. Case Title: Hemlata Arya v State of Madhya Pradesh, WP-7568-2018For Petitioner: Advocate Mahesh GoyalFor State: Government Advocate B.M. PatelFor Respondent no 5: Advocate Bhanu Prakash SinghClick here to read/download the Order

Person Migrating To Another State Can't Carry Scheduled Caste Status Even If Same Caste Is Recognised There: MP High Court

Jayanti Pahwa

Recognition as a scheduled caste is based on social, economic and educational backwardness existing in the home state and may not necessarily be the same in another state.

Tags