Are you looking for a legal research tool ?
Get Started
Do check other products like LIBIL, a legal due diligence tool to get a litigation check report and Case Management tool to monitor and collaborate on cases.

Ranjana Kumari v. State Of Uttarakhand

Ranjana Kumari v. State Of Uttarakhand

(Supreme Court Of India)

Civil Appeal Nos.8425 of 2013 | 01-11-2018

1. We have heard the learned counsels for the parties and perused the relevant material.

2. The appellant who belongs to Valmiki caste (Scheduled Caste) of the State of Punjab married a person belonging to the Valmiki caste of Uttarakhand and migrated to that State. In the State of Uttarakhand under the Presidential Order 'Valmiki' is also recognized as a notified Scheduled Caste. The State of Uttarakhand issued a certificate to the appellant.

3. The appellant contended before the High Court that she was a Scheduled Caste of the State of Uttarakhand. The High Court having rejected the claim, the appellant is in appeal before us.

4. Two Constitution Bench judgments of this Court in Marri Chandra Shekhar Rao vs. Dean, Seth G.S. Medical College & Ors., (1990) 3 SCC 130 [LQ/SC/1990/290] and Action Committee on Issue of Caste Certificate to Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes in the State of Maharashtra & Anr. vs. Union of India & Anr., (1994) 5 SCC 244 [LQ/SC/1994/639] 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 in Marri Chandra Shekhar Rao (supra) and Action Committee (supra).

5. We, therefore, find no error in the order of the High Court to justify any interference. The appeal is accordingly dismissed.

Advocate List

  • Dr. Aman Hingorani, Ms. Priya Hingorani, Dr. Shweta Hingorani, (M/s. Hingorani & ssociates), Ms. Rachana Srivastava, Ms. Monika, Dinesh Kumar Garg, Dhananjay Garg, Deepak Mishra, Ms. Chandan Ramamurthi, Advocates., for the Parties; Jatinder Kumar Bhatia, Advocate., for the Uttarakhand Public Service Commission

  •  

Bench
  • HON'BLE JUSTICE RANJAN GOGOI
  • C.J.I.
  • HON'BLE JUSTICE UDAY UMESH LALIT
  • HON'BLE JUSTICE K.M. JOSEPH
Eq Citations
  • 2019 (1) SCT 25
  • 2018 (14) SCALE 755
  • 2019 (2) SLR 767
  • LQ/SC/2018/1411
  • (2019) 15 SCC 664
Head Note

SCs, STs, OBCs and Minorities — Scheduled Castes — Scheduled Castes (Orders) — Scheduled Castes — Migration — Appellant who belongs to Valmiki caste (Scheduled Caste) of the State of Punjab married a person belonging to the Valmiki caste of Uttarakhand and migrated to that State — In the State of Uttarakhand under the Presidential Order 'Valmiki' is also recognized as a notified Scheduled Caste — The State of Uttarakhand issued a certificate to the appellant — Appellant contended before the High Court that she was a Scheduled Caste of the State of Uttarakhand — The High Court having rejected the claim, the appellant is in appeal before us — Two Constitution Bench judgments of the Supreme Court in Marri Chandra Shekhar Rao, (1990) 3 SCC 130 and Action Committee on Issue of Caste Certificate to Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes in the State of Maharashtra & Anr., (1994) 5 SCC 244 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 — 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 (supra) and Action Committee (supra) — Constitution of India — Art. 341 — Practice and Procedure — Precedent — Binding nature of precedent