1. By way of instant petition, petitioner has prayed for the following substantive relief: -

“That the respondents be directed to allow her application for issuance of a certificate for eligibility for reservation of jobs for Other Backward Classes and services under Government of India as she belongs to a Caste/Community, which is recognized by the State of Himachal Pradesh and she is married to Sadiq Mohammed, who also belongs to a Caste/Community, which is recognized as Other Backward Classes in the State of Himachal Pradesh.”

2. Petitioner was born in State of Bihar. She belonged to Muslim (Ansari) Caste/Community, which has been declared as Other Backward Class (for short, “OBC”) in the State of Bihar. Petitioner married one Sadiq Mohammed, a bonafide resident of State of Himachal Pradesh. The husband of petitioner belongs to Muslim (Teli) Caste/Community, which is also declared as OBC in state of Himachal Pradesh. The Ansari Caste/Community is also included in the Central List of OBC in State of Himachal Pradesh. Petitioner has also been issued Bonafide Himachali Certificate, after her marriage with Sadiq Mohammed.

3. Petitioner has applied to respondent No.2 for issuance of a certificate of eligibility for reservation of jobs for OBC. However, her application has remained undecided, forcing the petitioner to approach this Court by way of the present petition.

4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record carefully.

5. The question that arises for determination is whether the petitioner by virtue of being married to a person belonging to OBC in Himachal Pradesh or by inclusion of the original caste of petitioner (Ansari) in the list of Other Backward Classes in the State of Himachal Pradesh is entitled for issuance of a certificate of eligibility for reservation of jobs for Other Backward Classes in the State of Himachal Pradesh

6. Articles 341 and 342 of the Constitution of India read as under: -

“341. Scheduled Castes. — (1) The President [may with respect to any State [or Union territory], and where it is a State, after consultation with the Governor thereof,] by public notification, specify the castes, races or tribes or parts of or groups within castes, races or tribes which shall for the purposes of this Constitution be deemed to be Scheduled Castes in relation to that State [or Union territory, as the case may be.]

(2) Parliament may by law include in or exclude from the list of Scheduled Castes specified in a notification issued under clause (1) any caste, race or tribe or part of or group within any caste, race or tribe, but save as aforesaid a notification issued under the said clause shall not be varied by any subsequent notification.

342. Scheduled Tribes. — (1) The President [may with respect to any State or Union territory, and where it is a State , after consultation with the Governor thereof,] by public notification, specify the tribes or tribal communities or parts of or groups within tribes or tribal communities which shall for the purposes of this Constitution be deemed to be Scheduled Tribes in relation to that State or Union territory, as the case may be.

(2) Parliament may by law include in or exclude from the list of Scheduled Tribes specified in a notification issued under clause (1) any tribe or tribal community or part of or group within any tribe or tribal community, but save as aforesaid a notification issued under the said clause shall not be varied by any subsequent notification.

342A. Socially and educationally backward classes. — (1) The President may with respect to any State or Union territory, and where it is a State, after consultation with the Governor thereof, by public notification, specify the socially and educationally backward classes which shall for the purposes of this Constitution be deemed to be socially and educationally backward classes in relation to that State or Union territory, as the case may be.

(2) Parliament may by law include in or exclude from the Central List of socially and educationally backward classes specified in a notification issued under clause (1) any socially and educationally backward class, but save as aforesaid a notification issued under the said clause shall not be varied by any subsequent notification.”

7. All the above noted provisions expressly provide for powers of the President of India to specify the castes, races or tribes or socially and educationally backward classes for parts or groups within castes, races or tribes to be Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribes or the Other Backward Classes for the purpose of the Constitution of India in respect of any State or Union Territory and in relation to such State or Union Territory, as the case may be. Thus, the Scheduled caste, tribe or other backward class, declared in pursuance to above noted constitutional provisions, are required to be State or Union Territory specific.

8. In Pankaj Kumar vs. State of Jharkhand & others, 2021 SCC (online) SC 616, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed as under: -

“24. The mandate of affirmative action in favour of Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes indeed has an important place in our constitutional scheme. Articles 341(1)">Articles 341(1) and Article 342(1)">Article 342(1) of the Constitution of India empowers the President to specify the race or tribes or part of groups within caste, race or tribes with respect to any State or Union Territory for the purpose of the Constitution deemed to be SC/ST in relation to that State or Union Territory, as the case may be. The object of Articles 341(1) and 342(1)">Articles 341(1) and 342(1) of the Constitution is to provide additional protection to the members of the SC/ST having regard to the social and economical backwardness from which they suffer. It is obvious that in specifying castes, race or tribes, the President has been authorised to limit notification to part of groups with the castes, etc. and that must mean that after examination of the disadvantages from which they have suffered and the social and economic backwardness, the President may specify castes/tribes etc. as parts thereof in relation to the entire State or in relation to parts of the State where he is satisfied that after examination of the disadvantages, social and educational hardship and backwardness of the race, caste or tribes justifies such specification.

25. Articles 341 and 342 make it clear that the caste, race or tribe or part of or group within any caste, race or tribe as specified in the Presidential Order under Article 341(1)">Article 341(1) or a tribal community, as notified in the Presidential Order under Article 342(1)">Article 342(1) shall be deemed to be Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes for the purpose of the Constitution in relation to that State or Union Territory, as the case may be and this exposition has been made clear from clause (2) of the Constitution(Scheduled Castes)/(Scheduled Tribes) Order, 1950.

37. The Constitution Bench of this Court in Marri Chandra Shekhar Rao(supra) had an occasion to examine as to whether the person belonging to Scheduled Castes in relation to a particular State would be entitled to the benefits or concessions allowed to Scheduled Castes in the matter of education/employment in another State. Referring to various provisions of the Constitution and the grounds on which the Presidential Orders were issued and noticing earlier judgments, this Court held as under: -

“9. It appears that Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes in some States had to suffer the social disadvantages and did not have the facilities for development and growth. It is, therefore, necessary in order to make them equal in those areas where they have so suffered and are in the state of underdevelopment to have reservations or protection in their favour so that they can compete on equal terms with the more advantageous or developed sections of the community. Extreme social and economic backwardness arising out of traditional practices of untouchability is normally considered as criterion for including a community in the list of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. The social conditions of a caste, however, varies from State to State and it will not be proper to generalise any caste or any tribe as a Scheduled Tribe or Scheduled Caste for the whole country. This, however, is a different problem whether a member or the Scheduled Caste in one part of the country who migrates to another State or any other Union territory should continue to be treated as a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe in which he has migrated. That question has to be judged taking into consideration the interest and well-being of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes in the country as a whole.”

(Emphasis supplied)

38. This Court, while rejecting the contention that the member of the Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes should get the benefit for the purpose of Constitution throughout the territory of India, observed that if such contention is to be accepted, the very expression “in relation to State” would lose its significance. Marri Chandra Shekhar Rao(supra) was further followed by another Constitution Bench of this Court in Action Committee on Issue of Caste Certificate to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes in the State of Maharashtra and Anr. (supra) which further came to be followed by another Constitution Bench of this Court in Bir Singh(supra) wherein in para 34, it was held as under: -

“34. Unhesitatingly, therefore, it can be said that a person belonging to a Scheduled Caste in one State cannot be deemed to be a Scheduled Caste person in relation to any other State to which he migrates for the purpose of employment or education. The expressions “in relation to that State or Union Territory” and “for the purpose of this Constitution” used in Articles 341 and 342 of the Constitution of India would mean that the benefits of reservation provided for by the Constitution would stand confined to the geographical territories of a State/Union Territory in respect of which the lists of Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes have been notified by the Presidential Orders issued from time to time. A person notified as a Scheduled Caste in State ‘A’ cannot claim the same status in another State on the basis that he is declared as a Scheduled Caste in State ‘A’.” (emphasis supplied)

39. So far as involuntary migration from one State to another State is concerned, the Constitution Bench of this Court in Marri Chandra Shekhar Rao(supra) taking note of the fate of those castes/tribes seeking protection of being classed as Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes in the State of their origin when, because of transfer or movement of their father or guardian’s business or service, they move to another State having considered the fate of their migration from one State to another State being involuntary, by force or circumstances either of employment or of profession, left it for the legislature or the Parliament to consider it for appropriate legislation bearing that aspect in mind that their rights and privileges as members of Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes be well protected by virtue of provisions of Articles 341(1) and 342(1)">Articles 341(1) and 342(1) of the Constitution and observed in para 23 as under:-

“23. Having construed the provisions of Articles 341 and 342 of the Constitution in the manner we have done, the next question that falls for consideration, is, the question of the fate of those Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe students who get the protection of being classed as Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe in the States of origin when, because of transfer or movement of their father or guardian's business or service, they move to other States as a matter of voluntary (sic involuntary) transfer, will they be entitled to some sort of protective treatment so that they may continue or pursue their education. Having considered the facts and circumstances of such situation, it appears to us that where the migration from one State to another is involuntary, by force of circumstances either of employment or of profession, in such cases if students or persons apply in the migrated State where without affecting prejudicially the rights of the Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes in those States or areas, any facility or protection for continuance of study or admission can be given to one who has or migrated then some consideration is desirable to be made on that ground. It would, therefore, be necessary and perhaps desirable for the legislatures or the Parliament to consider appropriate legislations bearing this aspect in mind so that proper effect is given to the rights given to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes by virtue of the provisions under Articles 341 and 342 of the Constitution. This is a matter which the State legislatures or the Parliament may appropriately take into consideration.”

(emphasis supplied)

40. In relation to Backward Classes, this Court in M.C.D. Vs. Veena and Others, 2001 (6) SCC 571, has specifically held that migrants are not entitled for reservation as Other Backward Classes (OBCs) in the States/Union Territories where they have migrated. The relevant portion of the judgment that may be noticed is as hereunder:

“6. Castes or groups are specified in relation to a given State or Union Territory, which obviously means that such caste would include caste belonging to an OBC group in relation to that State or Union Territory for which it is specified. The matters that are to be taken into consideration for specifying a particular caste in a particular group belonging to OBCs would depend on the nature and extent of disadvantages and social hardships suffered by that caste or group in that State. However, it may not be so in another State to which a person belonging thereto goes by migration. It may also be that a caste belonging to the same nomenclature is specified in two States but the considerations on the basis of which they had been specified may be totally different. So the degree of disadvantages of various elements which constitute the data for specification may also be entirely different.

Thus, merely because a given caste is specified in one State as belonging to OBCs does not necessarily mean that if there be another group belonging to the same nomenclature in another State, a person belonging to that group is entitled to the rights, privileges and benefits admissible to the members of that caste. These aspects have to be borne in mind in interpreting the provisions of the Constitution with reference to application of reservation to OBCs.” (emphasis supplied).

41. By the judgments of the Constitution Bench of which the reference has been made (supra), it has been settled that the person belonging to Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes/OBC of the State, on migration to another State voluntarily or involuntarily, will not be entitled to claim benefits of reservation including privileges and benefits admissible to the member of the Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes/OBC even though, the caste or tribe of the same nomenclature is notified in the latter State(State where migrated) and if that is being permitted, the very expression as mandated under Articles 341(1) and 342(1)">Articles 341(1) and 342(1) of the Constitution in “relation to the State” would become otiose and this issue remain no more res integra after the pronouncements made by the Constitution Bench of this Court.

9. In Ranjana Kumari vs. State of Uttaranchal & others, Civil Appeal No. 8425 of 2013, two Judges Bench of Hon’ble Supreme Court referred an identical question to a larger Bench in following terms: -

“15. The question arising in this appeal is whether a person like the appellant, who is a Scheduled Caste in the State where she was born will not be entitled to the benefit of reservation after marriage in the State where her husband is living despite the fact that the husband also belongs to Scheduled Caste and the particular Caste falls in the same reserved category in the State of migration and that she is a permanent resident of that State.”

10. The question so referred in Ranjana Kumari’s case (supra) has been answered by three Judges of Hon’ble Supreme Court in 2019 (15) SCC 664, as under: -

“1. We have heard the learned counsel 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 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 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 and Action Committee.

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

11. The aforesaid judgment has recently been followed by the two Judges Bench of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case, titled as, Bhadar Ram vs. Jassa Ram & others, 2022 (4) SCC 259 .

12. From the above noticed exposition of law, the answer to question, formulated by us (supra) for adjudication in the instant petition, is no more res-integra. However, a Coordinate Bench of this Court in CWP No. 5951 of 2020, titled as, Naveen Kumari vs. State of H.P. & others, decided on, 22.2.2021, while dealing with an identical question held as under: -

“4. The necessity(ies)/reasons cast therein, vis-àvis, a person/candidate concerned, for hence validly applying, against the apposite scheduled caste vacancy, occurring in Himachal Pradesh, becomes grooved, in, upon her, becoming born, after the date of notification, of, Presidential Order, thereupon(s) his/her parents, being proven to be permanently domiciled, within the State of Himachal Pradesh, and, whereas, for wants thereof, the candidate concerned, loosing his/her status, as a scheduled caste category, within the State of Himachal Pradesh, does, (a) erode the unitary fabric, besides, the territorial integrity, of, the Union of India, (b) and, also erodes the holistic purpose, behind the constitutional engraftment(s), of, reservations, to, scheduled caste category, rather made, in consonance, with Articles 14 and 16, of, the Constitution of India, (c) the omnibus denial, of, the constitutionally bestowed benefits, of, reservation to rather befitting aspirants, against theirs applying in the afore category, and, against vacancies, occurring in any federal unit(s), of, the Union of India, or and, concomitantly, the scheduled caste certificate, not migrating from the place, of, permanent domicile, of, the parents, of the scheduled caste aspirants concerned, to other federal units, within, the Union of India, may not be, completely valid, and, especially qua (i) those aspirants concerned, who after marriage, borrow the caste, of, their husbands, and caste whereof, is, alike their parental caste, yet the scheduled caste certificate, becoming rejected, upon, its emerging from federal states, other than Himachal Pradesh, merely for/upon, uncalled for insistences being made, vis-àvis, the parents, of, the aspirants concerned, being, at the relevant stage, also provenly domiciled, within the State of Himachal Pradesh. (ii) Moreover, the afore necessity, may not also be constitutionally valid, rather the rejection, of, the afore status, upon the afore parameter, by any federal unit, within the Union of India, despite his/her becoming validly recognized and accepted, by other federal units, within Union of India, hence as a member, of, the apposite Scheduled caste community, (iii) may become waned, conspicuously, upon the parents, of, the candidate/aspirant concerned, hence acquiring property within the State of Himachal Pradesh, where through they become permanently, domiciled, within the territory, of, Himachal Pradesh, a part, of, the Union of India, (iv) whereupon, upon the above eventuality, making its occurrence, and, even if, within the territory, of, Himachal Pradesh, the parental caste, of, the aspirants/candidate concerned, is, not, akin to the scheduled caste, which each hold, within the federal State(s), of the Union of India, wherefrom, they permanently migrate, into Himachal Pradesh, or hence become permanently domiciled in Himachal Pradesh, or even if the afore caste, is, not recognized within Himachal Pradesh, as a Scheduled Caste, (v) thereupon, too any completest invalidation, or, de-recognition, of/to any hereat similar thereto, hence apposite scheduled caste, rather anvilled, upon, the afore alluded echoing(s), borne, in, the herebefore reflected scribed instructions, may not become completely vindicable, nor may work as a deterrence against the afore hence applying against a scheduled caste vacancy, occurring in Himachal Pradesh, (vi) given, thereupon, the unitary fabric, of, the Union of India, hence becoming an inapt casuality, and, also hence would bring an inapt casuality, to the holistic purpose, behind creation, of, reservation(s), for, scheduled caste aspirants through Articles 14 and 16, of, the Constitution of India, inasmuch as, the therethrough strived inter-generational remediation, becoming nullified. Moreover, a candidate concerned, upon his migrating, from other federal units, within Union of India, into Himachal Pradesh, and, whereafter(s), he/she and his/her parents, each become domiciled, within the State of Himachal Pradesh, and, though, each of them, may not, hold a co-equal hence declared scheduled caste, within the State of Himachal Pradesh, or rather upon, the, Scheduled caste, than the one, they earlier held, within other federal units, rather within the Union of India, being not recognized, as a Scheduled Caste, in, Himachal Pradesh, also may not become completely amenable, for, becoming completely stripped off, the, cloak of, constitutional reservation, meted to, the apposite scheduled caste aspirants, unless forthright material surges forth, and, makes displays, (vii) qua that the parental scheduled caste, hence held within, federal states of the Union of India, other than Himachal Pradesh, and, caste whereof may not be recognized, within the State of Himachal Pradesh, as a Scheduled caste, or even if other than, the domiciled state, of, the parents, or of, the aspirants concerned, it becomes not recognized, hence as a scheduled caste, or and, becomes cogently established, to, over the years, or with efflux of time, to hence make social marches, beyond the one, as, made by a co-equal thereto rather unrecognized scheduled caste, within the State of Himachal Pradesh, (viii) and, or upon cogent evidence becoming adduced, and its unfolding that the apposite unrecognized, in, Himachal Pradesh, Scheduled Caste, has overcome the bane of socially backwardness, or/and upon it extantly satiating the innate rubric behind reservation, inasmuch as, intergenerational remediation. (viii) and/or, reiteratedly, upon material surging forth, and, making display(s), that the holistic purpose, behind caste reservation, inasmuch as therethrough the apposite inter-generational remediation, becoming effectuated, or the afore becoming completely accomplished, vis-à-vis, the apposite caste, in Himachal Pradesh, though not recognized hereat, as a scheduled caste, despite, its being recognized, as, a scheduled caste, in other federal units, within the Union of India.

5. Be that as it may, the constitutional validity, of, the afore letter also becomes, completely un-hinged, specifically, vis-à-vis, the writ petitioner, as, uncontrovertedly, ‘Megh’ caste, is, recognized, as a “scheduled caste”, both in Himachal Pradesh and in Punjab, (a) thereupon, the necessity therein, of, the parents, of, the writ petitioner, becoming domiciled, within the State of Punjab, is, an un-necessarily created hurdle, against the writ petitioner, as, she has been married in Himachal Pradesh and, her husband holds, a, scheduled caste, alike the one her domiciled within the State of Punjab, hence parents, rather hold. In addition, the necessity, of, the parents, of, the aspirants concerned, holding, a, permanent domicile, within the State of Himachal Pradesh, is, uncalled for, and, also a constitutionally invalid, necessity, against the operation, of, a valid scheduled caste certificate, of, the writ petitioner, rather also within the State of Himachal Pradesh, (b) as within all federal units, within the Union of India, the status, of the aspirants concerned, as scheduled caste, rather assumes, more relevance, and preponderant importance, than the domiciling(s), of, the parents, of, the aspirants/candidates concerned, within the State of Himachal Pradesh, and, also when thereupon, the completest deference is bestowed, to the constitutional reservation(s), bestowed, upon, the scheduled caste category(ies). 6. Furthermore, the constitutionality, of, the further reason, voiced in the letter (supra), for invalidating, the caste certificate, of, the writ petitioner, inasmuch as it stemming, from weightage being given, to the schedule caste aspirants, domiciled within the State of Himachal Pradesh, is, perse constitutionally impermissible, and, besides, is constitutionally flawed, as, therethrough, an un-necessary territorial fetter rather within the Union of India, becomes created, vis-à-vis, the operation, of, scheduled caste certificate, whereas, the scheduled caste identity, of, its holder, travels alongwith him/her, in, all federal units, within the Union of India, unless the dispelling efficacy thereto rather material hence alluded, in, para-3 evidently surges forth.

7. Consequently, there is merit in the petition, and,the same is allowed. The respondents are directed to, forthwith, declare the result, of, the writ petitioner, and, in case, she occurs in the merit list, they are also directed to, forthwith, upon, completion, of, all the codal formalities, issue an appointment letter to her, Also, the pending application(s), if any, are disposed of.

13. The State of Himachal sought review of aforesaid judgment by way of Review Petition No. 47 of 2021, which was decided vide judgment dated 4.9.2021, by holding as under: -

“8. Be that as it may, both in Marri Chandra Shekhar Rao's case (supra), and, in Action Committee's case (supra) the issue of voluntarily and involuntarily migration, of, a person to a migratee State, and, as becomes occasioned upon her marriage, were never encompassed within the realm of the factual foundation(s) cast thereins, nor obviously any pointed, and, stark declaration qua the afore hence emerged. Moreover, in Ranjana Kumari's case (supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court, though had declined to validate the caste certificate of a lady from Punjab, married to a groom in Uttrakhand, despite in both States, an alike notified Scheduled Caste(s), rather existing, inasmuch as Valmiki caste apparently existing. However, the afore invalidation, is on the basis of judgments (supra), as, made by the Hon'ble Apex Court. Nonetheless, as aforestated, rather in none of the afore verdicts, of the Hon'ble Apex Court, the latter became seized with foundational facts hence appertaining to the legality of Schedule Castes certificate(s), as, held by any married spouse in both the State(s) of her origin, and, in the migratee State, conspicuously, when even in a migratee State a similar nomenclatured caste became validly notified. Therefore, the invalidation by the Hon'ble Apex Court of the caste certificate of the aspirant concerned, in its verdict, drawn in Ranjana Kumari's case (supra), does appear, to be beyond the ambit of the ratio decidendi, as propounded in the verdicts (surpa), whereons reliance has been placed by the Hon'ble Apex Court, inasmuch, as, in both the verdicts (supra) as became relied by the Hon'ble Apex Court, there were neither any foundational facts, vis-a-vis, the fact as repelled by the Hon'ble Apex Court, in the verdict rendered, in Ranjana Kumari's case (supra), nor any firm ratio decidendi qua therewith became expostulated, in the, verdicts (supra), as became relied upon.

9. Moreover, even in Pankaj Kumar's case (supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court neither came to be seized with the legality of a caste certificate, of a spouse, as arose from her marriage, in the migratee State, where also her husband belonged to a similar validly notified caste, nor hence any clinching verdict became pronounced thereons hence by the Hon'ble Apex Court.

10. For, wants of any firm declaration (supra) becoming carried, in the verdicts supra of the Hon'ble Apex Court, hence with respect to invalidation of a caste certificate, as purportedly arises, from the writ petitioner involuntarily shifting or migrating, on her marriage, to the State of Himachal Pradesh, and, her husband also carrying a caste alike her caste of origin, inasmuch, as “Megh” caste, besides in both the States, the afore caste being a validly notified scheduled caste. Therefore, this Court even upon leaving aside, the afore attribution of meaning, to the word “service qualification” as occurs in the Representation of the People Act, and its being borrowed, by the Apex Court, does proceed, to hence bring the petitioner also within the ambit of the meaning ascribed to “ordinary resident” (supra) by the Hon'ble Apex Court, inasmuch, as, within the ambit, and, clout thereof, that, upon hers migrating to Himachal Pradesh, upon hers marrying a groom, who alike her belongs to a Megh caste, and, when the said caste is also notified as a Scheduled Caste, in Himachal Pradesh, she rather making only temporary or fleeting movements to her matrimonial home, hence has not, ipso facto, rather ceased to be an ordinary resident within Himachal Pradesh, rather after marriage she becomes permanently domiciled in Himachal Pradesh.

11. Moreover, she establishes that upon her marriage in Himachal Pradesh, she has provenly established the requisite animus deserdendi, from the State of her origin i.e. Punjab. Therefore, she becomes an ordinary resident of Himachal Pradesh, as she has not migrated to Himachal Pradesh rather solitarily for the purpose of service, employment, and, education, rather has migrated on account of her marriage in Himachal Pradesh with her husband.

12. Emphasisingly, the settling of the conundrum with regard to “ordinary resident and bonafide resident” is/are of utmost importance. The meaning of the term “bonafide resident” as defined under various pronouncements made by different Courts, is, that of residence with a permanent intention to reside, in the State concerned.

13. Now the intention to reside permanently, is to be inferred from the circumstance of a particular caste. Since various states including the State of Himachal Pradesh, have framed rules for issuance of a bonafide certificate. The Himachal Pradesh Rules, for issuance of a bonafide certificate, prescribe that a person, who continuously resides in Himachal Pradesh for 15 years, becomes entitled for issuance of a bonafide certificate. If, a person continuously for 15 years holds his residence at Himachal Pradesh, it means that he has a permanent intention to reside in Himachal Pradesh, and, hence evinces his animus deserendi from the State of his origin. Consequently, a person, who becomes a bonafide resident of Himachal Pradesh, has definitely suffered and has become socially disadvantaged, disadvantages whereof, arise from his caste, given his for a minimum period of 15 years, rather being permanently domiciled in H.P. Therefore, he cannot be considered to be a migratee after 15 years, as, after the afore period he becomes entitled, for the issuance of a bonafide certificate, as per the rules. Consequently, if the caste of his origin is by birth in the State of his origin, and, is notified in the State where he is a bonafide resident, or is permanently domiciled. Therefore, he becomes entitled to receive an apposite caste certificate.

14. Consequently, as discussed above, when a person is issued a bonafide certificate, it means that he is a permanent resident of the State, for all intents and purposes as he has intention to live permanently there, and, he remains no more a migrant. Similarly, the petitioner after her marriage no more remains a migrant, and, she for all intents and purposes, is, now settled in the house of her husband.

15. However, subject to supra, paragraphs No. 4, 5 and 6 of the judgment under review are beyond the ambit of Article 340, and, are hence declared to be per incuriam.

16. In summa, the review petition is partly allowed to the extent (supra). The respondents concerned are, however, directed to forthwith declare the result of the writ petitioner, and, if she has successfully qualified the test, she be forthwith offered an appointment letter in accordance with law. All pending applications also stand disposed of.”

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 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).

16. Before forming such a question, the provision of Articles 341 & 342 of the Constitution of India, judgments of the Constitutional Bench 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 were considered in the backdrop of factual matrix, as noticed by their Lordships in paras 5 and 6 of the judgment as under:-

“5. Ms. Priya Hingorani, learned counsel for the appellant argued that the impugned order is liable to be set aside because the view taken by the High Court on the appellant’s entitlement to be treated as Scheduled Caste of Uttarakhand is not only erroneous, but is also contrary to the law laid down by this Court. She pointed out that the appellant had married Shri Rajesh Gill, who is Valmiki by caste and is a resident of Dehradun since 1988 and argued that the Commission committed an error by rejecting her plea for appointment against the post reserved for Scheduled Caste despite the fact that Valmiki is recognised as a Scheduled Caste in the States of Uttar Pradesh and Uttarakhand. Ms. Hingorani also invited our attention to certificates dated 10.9.2002 and 13.6.2005 issued by Tahsildar, Dehradun showing the appellant as Valmiki of Uttar Pradesh and Uttaranchal and a resident of Dehradun and argued that as on the last date of application, the appellant could not be treated as a person belonging to Punjab because she is a permanent resident of Dehradun (Uttarakhand). Learned counsel also assailed the other ground on which the Commission rejected the appellant’s candidature by pointing out that result of the examination held by Rajrshi Tandon Open University, Allahabad was declared on 15.9.2002, i.e., one day before the last date fixed for receipt of application and she had produced all the documents at the time of interview.

6. Ms. Rachana Srivastava, learned counsel for the respondents supported the impugned order and argued that the High Court did not commit any error by negating the appellant’s challenge to the decision of the Commission to cancel her candidature because she cannot be treated as a Scheduled Caste of Uttarakhand. In support of her argument, Ms. Srivastava relied upon the judgments of the Constitution Bench in Marri Chandra Shekhar Rao v. Dean, 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 v. Union of India and another (1994) 5 SCC 244 and Subhash Chandra and another v. Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board and others (2009) 15 SCC 458 .”

17. The question so framed in Ranjana Kumari,thus, was in respect of a female, who belonged to Scheduled Caste in one State and after marrying a person of Scheduled Caste in another State had started residing in the State of her husband. The three Judges Bench has negated the question, so referred, meaning thereby that even the facts of that case were not found fit to be an exception to the general rule.

18. In MCD vs. Veena & others 2001 (6) SCC 571, Hon’ble Supreme Court had observed as under: -

“Castes or groups are specified in relation to a given State or Union Territory, which obviously means that such caste would include caste belonging to an OBC group in relation to that State or Union Territory for which it is specified. The matters that are to be taken into consideration for specifying a particular caste in a particular group belonging to OBCs would depend on the nature and extent of disadvantages and social hardships suffered by that caste or group in that State. However, it may not be so in another State to which a person belongs thereto goes by migration. It may also be that a caste belonging to the same nomenclature is specified in two States but the considerations on the basis of which they been specified may be totally different. So, the degree of disadvantages of various elements which constitute the data for specification may also be entirely different. Thus, merely because a given caste is specified in one State as belonging to OBCs does not necessarily mean that if there be another group belonging to the same nomenclature in other State and a person belonging to that group is entitled to the rights, privileges and benefits admissible to the members of that caste. These aspects have to be borne in mind in interpreting the provisions of the Constitution with reference to application of reservation to OBCs.”

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 bonafide 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.

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 .

21. Question is answered accordingly.

22. In light of above discussion, we find no merit in the instant petition and the same is accordingly dismissed. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.