Archana Dangi vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh

Court: Madhya Pradesh High Court
Decided on: 31-03-2026

<div> 1 W.P.NO. 24696/2021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT GWALIOR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ASHISH SHROTI WRIT PETITION NO. 24696 OF 2021 ARCHANA DANGI Versus THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Appearance: Shri Sankalp Sharma - Advocate for the petitioner. Shri K.K. Prajapati - GA for the respondents/State. RESERVED ON: 20/03/2026 ORDER PASSED ON: 31/03/2026 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- O R D E R The petitioner Archana Dangi was originally a resident of District Jalaun in the State of Uttar Pradesh. Her parents belong to Dangi community, which is notified as OBC in the State of Uttar Pradesh. The petitioner holds an OBC caste certificate issued by the competent authority of District Jalaun (Uttar Pradesh) on 18/08/2005. She was married to one Majbut Singh Dangi, who is a resident of District Datia in Madhya Pradesh. Accordingly, after her marriage, she shifted to District Datia in the State of Madhya Pradesh. Her husband also belongs to Dangi community, which is notified as OBC in the State of Madhya Pradesh. 2. The petitioner participated in the Uchcha Madhyamik Shikshak Eligibility Test-2018 conducted by the School Education Department for appointment to the post of Uchcha Madhyamik Shikshak. The petitioner successfully qualified the test. She was called for document verification by the District Education Officer, Datia. Upon verification of the documents, her candidature was rejected on the ground that her caste certificate Signature Not Verified Signed by: JAI PRAKASH SOLANKI Signing time: 3/31/2026 5:39:10 PM 2 W.P.NO. 24696/2021 belonged to another State. A copy of the documents verification slip dated 3/7/2020 in this regard has been placed on record as Annexure P/2 in the writ petitions. 3. Challenging their disqualification, the petitioner has filed this writ petition praying for the following reliefs: "i) Annexure P/2 may kindly be quashed in the interest of justice, ii) Petitioner be declared to be duly qualified candidate holding due caste certificate and Respondent be directed to appoint Petitioner on the post of Sanskrit teacher; iii) Respondent be directed to conduct re-verification of the documents of the Petitioner iv) Any other relief deemed fit in the facts and circumstances of the case may also be kindly granted, Cost may also be awarded. " 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner belongs to Dangi community, which is recognized as OBC in the State of Uttar Pradesh. Her caste certificate has been issued by the competent authority of District Jalaun (U.P.). He then submitted that the aforesaid caste is recognized as OBC in the State of Madhya Pradesh also and, therefore, the petitioner could not have been denied the benefit of reservation in the matter of selection. 5. Learned counsel further submitted that the petitioner migrated to the State of Madhya Pradesh on account of her marriage. Her husband also belong to the same caste and, therefore, by virtue of her marriage also, the petitioner is entitled to be treated as member of the OBC community in the State of Madhya Pradesh. Learned counsel thus submitted that the action of the respondents in denying the appointment to the petitioner to the post in question is illegal and deserves to be set aside. In support of his submissions, learned counsel placed reliance upon decision of a Coordinate Bench of this Court at Indore in the case of Smt. Anusuiya Prajapati Vs. State of M.P. & Ors., in W.P. No.10277/2021 . Signature Not Verified Signed by: JAI PRAKASH SOLANKI Signing time: 3/31/2026 5:39:10 PM 3 W.P.NO. 24696/2021 6. On the other hand, counsel for respondents supported the action of the respondents. It is his submission that the petitioner is admittedly holding the caste certificate which is issued by the authority of the State of Uttar Pradesh. It is his submission that by virtue of her marriage, the petitioner would not become the member of a particular caste in M.P. only because her husband belongs to the said caste. As per his submission, the petitioner's caste would be determined based on her birth and not on her marriage. Learned counsel submitted that the instructions have been issued by the General Administration Department vide circular dated 06/04/2021 providing that migration to the State of M.P., after marriage, the petitioner would not be entitled to benefit of her caste by virtue of caste certificate issued by the Competent Authority of State of Uttar Pradesh. In support of his submission, the learned counsel placed reliance upon the Division Bench judgment in the case of Seema Devi Vs. Union of India and Ors. reported in 2024(2) MPLJ 71. He also relied upon the decision of this Court in the case of Sadhna Sau Vs. State of M.P. and Ors., in W.P. No.81/2023 . 7. Considered the arguments and perused the record. 8. The facts which are not disputed in this case are that the petitioner holds OBC caste certificate issued by the competent authority of District Jalaun in the State of Uttar Pradesh. She migrated to the State of Madhya Pradesh on account of her marriage. It is also not in dispute that the Dangi caste is recognized as OBC in State of U.P. as also in M.P. 9. Thus, the issue for determination is as to whether, on the basis of the caste certificate issued by the competent authority in the State of Uttar Pradesh, the petitioner is entitled to claim the benefit of the OBC category in the State of Madhya Pradesh ? 10. This issue is no more res integra . The Division Bench of this Court in the case of Seema Devi (supra) has considered such issue and after referring to various decisions of Hon. Supreme Court, held in para 6 & 7 as under:- "6. From the aforesaid, it is lucid that a person, who migrates from one State to the other does not carry his caste status to the Signature Not Verified Signed by: JAI PRAKASH SOLANKI Signing time: 3/31/2026 5:39:10 PM 4 W.P.NO. 24696/2021 migrating State, even if the same caste is recognized as OBC in both States. The reason is not far to see. There may be caste or sub caste of same name, which are recognized in more than one States in India. However, merely because the caste known by a particular name is recognized in more than one States cannot extend the benefit of reservation in both the States. The recognition of a caste in a particular State as OBC 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. 6.1 Thus, it is not the similarity of name of a particular caste in two or more States, which is the deciding factor but it is the social, economic and educational backwardness of that particular caste in a particular State, which recognizes that caste to be a scheduled caste/OBC. The social, economic and educational backwardness are factors, which are never identical or even similar in two different States. 7. Accordingly, the prayer for quashment of Annexure P/1 & P/2, which are executive instructions issued by Government of India and Government of M.P. respectively do not have any force since the principle behind these impugned instructions are in line with law laid down by Apex Court in aforesaid decisions. 7.1 The other ground of petitioner that caste is relatable to birth is not disputed. However, in the given facts and circumstances where a person migrates from one State to the other, he does not carry with him his caste status to the migrating State. This has been explained repeatedly by Apex Court in aforesaid decisions as extracted above. 7.2 The other ground of petitioner that concept of reservation would be defeated, if Annexure P/1 & P/2 are upheld also has no Signature Not Verified Signed by: JAI PRAKASH SOLANKI Signing time: 3/31/2026 5:39:10 PM 5 W.P.NO. 24696/2021 water to hold. The concept of reservation is undoubtedly recognized Constitutionally. However, reservation in public services is always Statewise and does not have a Pan India sweep. The presidential orders which notified the list of Scheduled Caste, Scheduled Tribe and O.B.C. are published separately for each State. There is no singular list of S.C., S.T. and O.B.C. by a presidential order for the entire country. Thus, there is no question of concept of reservation being defeated on migration. 7.3 The last ground of learned counsel for petitioner that law laid down by Apex Court is not in consonance with provisions of Constitution is heard to be dismissed at the very outset. Under Article 141 of the Constitution, the law declared by Apex Court is binding on all Courts situated within the territory of India. Aforesaid extracted judgments which lay down the law in respect of caste status of a person migrating from one State to the other is binding on this Court. " 11. It is profitable to refer to the Apex Court judgment rendered in the case of Bir Singh Vs. Delhi Jal Board, reported in (2018)10 SCC 312 on this issue. The observations made by Apex Court in para 34 being relevant, are reproduced hereunder: " 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 Signature Not Verified Signed by: JAI PRAKASH SOLANKI Signing time: 3/31/2026 5:39:10 PM 6 W.P.NO. 24696/2021 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’ ." 12. The similar view has been taken by Coordinate Benches of this Court in the case of Smt. Pratibha Goswami Vs. State of M.P. & others, in W.P. No.3508/2022, Smt. Rajni Singh Vs. State of M.P. & others, in W.P. No.5713/2013 & Anita Lilhare Vs. State of M.P. & others , in W.P. No.28968/2022. 13. The Apex Court was considering the issue as to whether, a non-tribal woman, upon marriage with a tribal man, would acquire the status of a member of tribe, in the case of Sobha Hymavathi Devi v. Setti Gangadhara Swamy reported in (2005)2 SCC 244 . Answering the issue, the Court held as under: " 10. What then remains is the fact that the appellant though assigned the caste of her father Murahari Rao, namely, the Sistu Karnam community, had married a tribal belonging to the Bhagatha community. On the basis of this marriage, it is argued that she must be taken to have acquired membership in the community of her husband and consequently treated as a member of that community. It is in that context that the decision in Horo [(1972) 1 SCC 771 : AIR 1972 SC 1840] was relied on. It is also contended that the decision in Horo [(1972) 1 SCC 771 : AIR 1972 SC 1840] related to an election dispute and consequently, the ratio of that decision should govern the present case. We have already indicated that there is nothing to show that the marriage of the appellant with Appala Raju was sanctioned or approved by the elders of the Bhagatha community or the Panchayat concerned or was in tribal form or that the formalities attending Signature Not Verified Signed by: JAI PRAKASH SOLANKI Signing time: 3/31/2026 5:39:10 PM 7 W.P.NO. 24696/2021 such a tribal marriage were observed and the marriage was performed after obtaining the approval of the elders of the tribe. Even otherwise, we have difficulty in accepting the position that a non-tribal who marries a tribal could claim to contest a seat reserved for tribals . Article 332 of the Constitution speaks of reservation of seats for Scheduled Tribes in Legislative Assemblies. The object is clearly to give representation in the legislature to Scheduled Tribe candidates, considered to be deserving of such special protection. To permit a non-tribal under cover of a marriage to contest such a seat would tend to defeat the very object of such a reservation. The decision of this Court in Valsamma Paul v. Cochin University [(1996) 3 SCC 545 : 1996 SCC (L&S) 772 : (1996) 33 ATC 713] supports this view. Neither the fact that a non-backward female married a backward male nor the fact that she was recognised by the community thereafter as a member of the backward community, was held to enable a non-backward to claim reservation in terms of Article 15(4) or 16(4) of the Constitution . Their Lordships after noticing Bhoobum Moyee Debia v. Ram Kishore Acharj Chowdhry [(1865) 10 MIA 279] and Lulloobhoy Bappoobhoy Cassidass Moolchund v. Cassibai [(1879-80) 7 IA 212 : ILR 5 Bom 110] held that a woman on marriage becomes a member of the family of her husband and thereby she becomes a member of the caste to which she has moved. The caste rigidity breaks down and would stand as no impediment to her becoming a member of the family to which the husband belongs and to which she gets herself transplanted. Thereafter, this Court noticed that recognition by the community was also important. Even then, this Court categorically laid down that the recognition of a lady as a member of a backward community in view of her marriage would not be relevant for the purpose of entitlement to reservation under Signature Not Verified Signed by: JAI PRAKASH SOLANKI Signing time: 3/31/2026 5:39:10 PM 8 W.P.NO. 24696/2021 Article 16(4) of the Constitution for the reason that she as a member of the forward caste, had an advantageous start in life and a marriage with a male belonging to a backward class would not entitle her to the facility of reservation given to a backward community. The High Court has applied this decision to a seat reserved in an election in terms of Article 332 of the Constitution. We see no reason why the principle relating to reservation under Articles 15(4) and 16(4) laid down by this Court should not be extended to the constitutional reservation of a seat for a Scheduled Tribe in the House of the People or under Article 332 in the Legislative Assembly. The said reservations are also constitutional reservations intending to benefit the really underprivileged and not those who come to the class by way of marriage. To the extent the decision in Horo [(1972) 1 SCC 771 : AIR 1972 SC 1840] can be said to run counter to the above view, it cannot be accepted as correct. Even otherwise, in the absence of evidence on the relevant aspects regarding marriage in tribal form and acceptance by the community, the decision in Horo [(1972) 1 SCC 771 : AIR 1972 SC 1840] cannot come to the rescue of the appellant. On a consideration of the relevant aspects, we are of the view that whether it be a reservation under Articles 15(4) or 16(4) or 330 and 332, the said reservation would benefit only those who belong to a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe and not those who claim to acquire the status by marriage, like the appellant in this case . Thus, in our view, the High Court was fully justified in coming to the conclusion that the appellant could not claim the right to contest a seat reserved for a Scheduled Tribe in terms of Article 332of the Constitution merely by virtue of her marriage to a person belonging to a Scheduled Tribe. " Signature Not Verified Signed by: JAI PRAKASH SOLANKI Signing time: 3/31/2026 5:39:10 PM 9 W.P.NO. 24696/2021 14. Following the aforesaid judgment, the Apex Court reiterated the same legal position in the case of Sandhya Thakur v. Vimla Devi Kushwah reported in (2005)2 SCC 731 as under: "2. In the light of the decision in Valsamma Paul v. Cochin University [(1996) 3 SCC 545 : 1996 SCC (L&S) 772 : (1996) 33 ATC 713] and our decision rendered today in Sobha Hymavathi Devi v. Setti Gangadhara Swamy [ CAs Nos. 4413-14 of 2003 dated 28-1-2005 reported at (2005) 2 SCC 244], which was heard along with this appeal, it must be held that the appellant, who by birth did not belong to a backward class or community, would not be entitled to contest a seat reserved for a backward class or community, merely on the basis of her marriage to a male of that community. Therefore, it is not possible to accept the argument that the appellant was entitled to contest a seat reserved for a backward community merely because of her marriage to a person belonging to the Namdev community or caste. We also see no reason to differ from the High Court in its view that the circular dated 12-3-1997 was not restricted in its operation to employment and admission to an educational institution, but was also relevant and applicable in elections to local bodies. It is, thus, found that both the reasons given by the High Court for affirming the decision of the District Judge setting aside the election of the appellant are sustainable. In view of this we have no hesitation in confirming the decision of the High Court and in dismissing this appeal. Hence, we dismiss this appeal with costs. " 15. In view of aforesaid pronouncement of law by the Apex Court as also by Division Bench and Coordinate Benches of this Court, it is settled legal position that a person, when migrates from one State to other, does not carry with him, his caste status to the migrating State. Merely because the caste with the same name is recognized in both the States would not ipso facto Signature Not Verified Signed by: JAI PRAKASH SOLANKI Signing time: 3/31/2026 5:39:10 PM 10 W.P.NO. 24696/2021 entitle such person to get the benefit of his caste in the migrating State. Similarly, a woman when moves from one state to another on marriage, also would not acquire the status of caste of her husband. 16. The term sub silentio is a legal Latin term which means "under silence" or "in silence". Further, the term per incuriam means “through inadvertence”. In the case of Hyder Consulting (UK) Ltd. Vs. State of Orissa reported in (2015)2 SCC 189 , the Apex Court dealt with doctrine of sub silentio and per incuriam and held as under: “ 47. Therefore, I am of the considered view that a prior decision of this Court on identical facts and law binds the Court on the same points of law in a later case. In exceptional circumstances, where owing to obvious inadvertence or oversight, a judgment fails to notice a plain statutory provision or obligatory authority running counter to the reasoning and result reached, the principle of per incuriam may apply . The said principle was also noticed in Fuerst Day Lawson Ltd. Vs. Jindal Exports Ltd., (2001) 6 SCC 356.” 17. The Division Bench of this Court has also considered the doctrine of sub silentio and per incuriam in the case of Ram Bharose Sharma vs. State of M.P. & ors . reported in 2021(4) MPLJ 90 , wherein the Division Bench held as under: “ 28. Therefore, cumulatively, the decision of Division Bench in the case of A was Samasya Niwaran Sansthan (supra) as well as in Ward Sudhar Samiti (supra), did not consider the interplay of different provisions of the Act of 1956 and their resultant effect in the light of principle of Public Policy, especially when provisions of issuance of public notice and authority to impose improvement charges lie with the Commissioner as per section 371 and 378 respectively of the Act of 1956 and both judgments did not consider these provisions and point of law involved in Signature Not Verified Signed by: JAI PRAKASH SOLANKI Signing time: 3/31/2026 5:39:10 PM 11 W.P.NO. 24696/2021 given factual set up, then both these judgments pass sub silentio and cannot be relied upon being per incuriam on discussion made and reasons stated above .” 18. In support of his submission, petitioner's counsel has placed heavy reliance upon the Coordinate Bench decision of this Court at Indore in the case of Smt. Anusuiya Prajapati (supra) . However, it is found that the Apex Court decision rendered in the case of Bir Singh, Sobha Hymavathi Devi, Sandhya Thakur (supra) as also the Division Bench decision of this Court in the case of Seema Devi (supra) , were not brought to the notice of the Court in the case of Smt. Anusuiya Prajapati (supra) . The view taken by the Court in the case of Smt. Anusuiya Prajapati (supra) is found to be not in consonance with the aforesaid decisions of Apex Court. Accordingly, the decision of Coordinate Bench of this Court at Indore in the case of Smt. Anusuiya Prajapati (supra) is found to be per incuriam and petitioner does not get any help from the the said decision. 19. The petitioner is, therefore, not entitled to claim the benefit of her caste in State of Madhya Pradesh on the basis of her caste certificate issued by the competent authority in the State of Uttar Pradesh. The action of the respondents is, therefore, found to be just and proper and does not warrant any interference by this Court. The same is upheld. 20. The petition is, accordingly, dismissed. (ASHISH SHROTI) JUDGE JPS/- Signature Not Verified Signed by: JAI PRAKASH SOLANKI Signing time: 3/31/2026 5:39:10 PM</div>