An appeal dismissed challenging termination of service due to invalid caste certificate. The High Court upheld termination citing Supreme Court rulings that migration does not confer reservation status in the new state if the caste status was not established there prior.
Appeal dismissed, services termination upheld.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 86/2021
Anita D/o Shri Dalvir Singh, Aged About 33 Years, W/o Shri Lokesh Singh, B/c Jat, R/o Ward No. 11 Surota Lakhan Tehsil Kumher, District Bharatpur (Raj.).
----Appellant
Versus
----Respondents
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Sushil Bishnoi. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Pankaj Sharma, AAG.
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. AKIL KURESHI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MEHTA
Order
21/10/2021
This appeal has been filed by the original petitioner to challenge the judgment of the learned Single Judge passed in CWP No.7655/2020.
By the impugned judgment, the learned Single Judge had disposed of three petitions. One one of the petitioners has filed the appeal.
Shortly stated the facts are that the appellant-petitioner applied to the post of Teacher Grade-III pursuant to advertisement
(2 of 3)
[SAW-86/2021]
issued by the respondents on 11.09.2017. The appellantpetitioner along with application form produced caste certificate issued in the name of her husband. Thereafter, she produced another caste certificate issued in her father’s name and sought appointment to the said post as OBC candidate. The appellantpetitioner was selected, offered appointment and also joined the duties. Subsequently, the Director of Education issued a notice dated 05.11.2019 proposing to cancel her selection. The appellant-petitioner objected the same. Despite this, appellant’s services were terminated by order dated 09.06.2020. The appellant-petitioner had challenged the same before the learned Single Judge. The petition came to be dismissed by the impugned judgment on the ground that the petitioner belongs to OBC category in the State of Haryana and upon her migration to State of Rajasthan by marriage, she would not carry her caste status. According to the respondent thus the appellant-petitioner could not have availed the benefit of reservation upon her migration to the State of Rajasthan. The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition along with two connected petitions on record.
We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents.
The issue of carrying caste certificate by a person belonging to reserved category upon migration from one State to another State is settled by a judgment of Supreme Court in case of Marri Chandra Shekhar Rao Vs. Seth G.S. Medical College [(1990) 3 SCC 130] and it is concluded by a Constitutional Bench judgment in case of Ranjana Kumari Vs. State of Uttarakhand & Ors. [(2019) 15 SCC 664]. The following observations were made in para 4 of the judgment:
(3 of 3)
[SAW-86/2021]
“Two Constitutional Bench judgments of this Court in Marri Chandra Shekhar Rao vs. 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 because in the migrant State the same caste is recognised as Scheduled Caste, the migrant 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 .”
In view of the concluded legal position, the respondents were justified perfectly justified in terminating services of the appellantpetitioner after giving opportunity of hearing.
Learned counsel for the appellant-petitioner, however, raised a strange argument that the judgment must be applied prospectively. It is well-settled that decision of Supreme Court clarifies the correct position of law and in terms of Article 141 of the Constitution of India becomes a law of land and would be applicable to all pending cases.
In the result, the appeal is dismissed.
(SANDEEP MEHTA),J
(AKIL KURESHI),CJ
50-a.asopa/-
2 issues framed by the court
Whether a person belonging to a reserved category in one state can avail reservation benefits in another state after migration by marriage.
Whether the termination of services was justified despite the appellant's claim that the precedent should be applied prospectively.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Marri Chandra Shekhar Rao Vs. Seth G.S. Medical CollegeReferred¶23
Marri Chandra Shekhar Rao Vs. Seth G.S. Medical College [(1990) 3 SCC 130] · Who else cites this
Ranjana Kumari Vs. State of Uttarakhand & Ors.Referred¶23
Ranjana Kumari Vs. State of Uttarakhand & Ors. [(2019) 15 SCC 664] · Who else cites this
Anita D/o Shri Dalvir Singh
State Of Rajasthan
Akil Kureshi
Sandeep Mehta
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
