BARIA SHARMISHTHA BEN vs STATE OF RAJASTHAN

(1 of 7)
[2026:RJ-JD:55282-DB] [SAW-1695/2025]
Reportable
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
AT JODHPUR
D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 1695/2025
CNR: RJHC011012902025 | URN: SAW / 3046U / 2025
Baria Sharmishtha Ben W/o Sanjay Kumar Bhilwal, Aged About
40 Years, R/o Ward No. 07, Jhanjharwa Kalla, Banswara,
Rajasthan.
----Appellant
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Principal Secretary,
Medical And Health Department, Jaipur, Raj.
2. Joint Secretary, Medical And Health Department, Jaipur,
Raj.
3. Director, State Institute And Health And Family Welfare,
Jhalana Institutional Area, Near Doordarshan Kendra,
Jaipur Raj.
----Respondents
For Appellant(s) : Mr. C.S.Kotwani.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. N.S.Rajpurohit, AAG assisted by
Ms Kanchan Jodha.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINIT KUMAR MATHUR
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA SHEKHAR SHARMA
Order
05/11/2026
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. The present Special Appeal has been filed by the appellant
against the order dated 23.09.2025 passed by learned Single
Bench in S.B.Civil Writ Petition No.17547/2025 (Baria
Sharmishtha Ben v/s State of Rajasthan & Ors. ) whereby the
writ petition filed by the appellant-petitioner has been dismissed.
3. Brief facts necessary to be noted are that the appellant-
petitioner hails from the State of Gujarat and her caste is
recognized in ST category in the State of Gujarat. Her marriage
(Uploaded on 06/11/2026 at 02:42:38 PM)
(Downloaded on 06/11/2026 at 03:06:03 PM)

(2 of 7)
[2026:RJ-JD:55282-DB] [SAW-1695/2025]
was solemnized with a person living in the State of Rajasthan
having the same caste to which the appellant belongs. After her
marriage, the appellant applied for appointment to the post of
Nursing Officer and claimed reservation in ST category. The
respondent State rejected candidature of the appellant in ST
category and considered her candidature for appointment to the
post of Nursing Officer in General Category. In these
circumstances, the appellant preferred a writ petition before the
learned Single Bench. However, relying upon the judgment of
Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ranjana Kumari Vs. The
State of Uttarakhand & Ors. (Civil Appeal No.8425/2003,
decided on 01.11.2018 [(2019) 15 SCC 664 ] , the learned
Single Bench vide its order dated 23.09.2025 dismissed the writ
petition filed by the appellant-petitioner. Hence, the present
appeal has been preferred.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant-petitioner vehemently
argued that the appellant belongs to a caste which is considered in
ST category in the State of Gujarat and on the same footing, in
the State of Rajasthan, the caste to which the appellant belongs is
also categorized as ST category, therefore, her candidature was
required to be considered in ST category. He, therefore, prays that
the order passed by the learned Single Bench may be quashed
and set aside and the respondent State may be directed to
consider the candidature of the appellant in ST category for
appointment to the post of Nursing Officer.
5. Per contra, Mr. N.S. Rajpurohit, learned Additional Advocate
General submits that the argument advanced by learned counsel
for the appellant is not sustainable in view of the judgments
(Uploaded on 06/11/2026 at 02:42:38 PM)
(Downloaded on 06/11/2026 at 03:06:03 PM)

(3 of 7)
[2026:RJ-JD:55282-DB] [SAW-1695/2025]
rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme court in the cases of Marri
Chandra Shekhar Rao v/s Dean Geth G.S. Medical College
and others reported in (1990) 3 SCC, 130, Action
Committee on the issue of Caste Certificate to Scheduled
Castes and scheduled Tribes in the State of Maharashtra
and Anr. V/s UOI & Anr. Reported in (1994) 5 SCC, 244
wherein it has been categorically held that if a person belongs to a
reserved category in a particular State migrates for appointment
in another State then candidature of that candidate will be
considered in General Category. Learned counsel for the State
also submits that there was a specific condition in the
advertisement that if a candidate belonging to reserved category
migrates in the State of Rajasthan, the candidature of such a
candidate will be considered in general category. On the strength
of the above arguments, learned AAG submits that the learned
Single Bench has rightly dismissed the writ petition filed by the
appellant and prays that the order passed by the learned Single
Judge does not call for any interference by this court.
6. Having considered the submissions made at the bar, we note
that undisputed facts in the present case disclose that the
appellant belongs to a caste which is categorized in the ST
category in the State of Gujarat. After her marriage with a person
belonging to ST category, the appellant started living in the State
of Rajasthan. While she was living in the State of Rajasthan, she
applied for appointment to the post of Nursing Officer and claimed
reservation as a ST category candidate. However, while the
exercise for appointment to the post of Nursing Officer was in
progress, her candidature was rejected in ST category and
(Uploaded on 06/11/2026 at 02:42:38 PM)
(Downloaded on 06/11/2026 at 03:06:03 PM)

(4 of 7)
[2026:RJ-JD:55282-DB] [SAW-1695/2025]
appellant was considered in general category. The learned Single
Bench in the light of judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme
Court in the case of Ranjana Kumari (supra) held that if a
candidate belonging to Gujarat migrates to the State of Rajasthan
then her candidature will be considered in General Category.
7. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Marri Chandra
Shekhar Rao (supra) in para No.13 has held as under :-
“13. It is trite knowledge that the statutory and constitutional
provisions should be interpreted broadly and harmoniously. It is
trite saying that where there is conflict between two provisions,
these should be so interpreted as to give effect to both. Nothing is
surplus in a Constitution and no part should be made nugatory.
This is well-settled. See the observations of this Court in Sri
Venkataramana Devaru & Ors. v. State of Mysore & Ors., where
Venkatarama Aiyar, J. reiterated that the rule of construction is
well-settled and where there are in an enactment two provisions
which cannot be reconciled with each other, these should be so
interpreted that, if possible, effect could be given to both. It,
however, appears to us that the expression 'for the purposes of
this Constitution' in Articles 341 as well as in Article 342 do imply
that the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes so specified
would be entitled to enjoy all the constitutional rights that are
enjoyable by all the citizens as such. Constitutional right, e.g., it
has been argued that right to migration or right to move from one
part to another is a right given to all--to scheduled castes or tribes
and to non-scheduled castes or tribes. But when a Scheduled
Caste or tribe migrates, there is no inhibition in migrating but
when he migrates, he does not and cannot carry any special rights
or privileges attributed to him or granted to him in the original
State specified for that State or area or part thereof. If that right
is not given in the migrated state it does not interfere with his
constitutional right of equality or of migration or of carrying on his
trade, business or profession. Neither Article 14 , 16 , 19 nor Article
21 is denuded by migration but he must enjoy those rights in
accordance with the law if they are otherwise followed in the place
where he migrates. There should be harmonious construction,
harmonious in the sense that both parts or all parts of a
constitutional provision should be so read that one part does not
become nugatory to the other or denuded to the other but all
parts must be read in the context in which these are used. It was
contended that the only way in which the fundamental rights of
the petitioner under Article 14 , 19(1)(d) , 19(1)(e) and 19(1)(f)
could be given effect to is by construing Article 342 in a manner
by which a member of a Scheduled Tribe gets the benefit of that
status for the purposes of the Constitution throughout the territory
of India. It was submitted that the words "for the purposes of this
Constitution" must be given full effect. There is no dispute about
that. The words "for the purposes of this Constitution" must mean
that a Scheduled Caste so designated must have right under
Articles 14, 19(1)(d), 19(1)(e) and 19(1)(f) inasmuch as these are
applicable to him in his area where he migrates or where he goes.
The expression "in relation to that State" would become nugatory
(Uploaded on 06/11/2026 at 02:42:38 PM)
(Downloaded on 06/11/2026 at 03:06:03 PM)

(5 of 7)
[2026:RJ-JD:55282-DB] [SAW-1695/2025]
if in all States the special privileges or the rights granted to
Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes are carried forward. It will
also be inconsistent with the whole purpose of the scheme of
reservation. In Andhra Pradesh, a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled
Tribe may require protection because a boy or a child who grows
in that area is inhibited or is at disadvantage. In Maharashtra that
caste or that tribe may not be so inhibited but other castes or
tribes might be. If a boy or a child goes to that atmosphere of
Maharashtra as a young boy or a child and goes in a completely
different atmosphere or Maharashtra where this inhibition or this
disadvantage is not there, then he cannot be said to have that
reservation which will denude the children or the people of
Maharashtra belonging to any segment of that State who may still
require that protection. After all, it has to be borne in mind that
the protection is necessary for the disadvantaged castes or tribes
of Maharashtra as well as disadvantaged castes or tribes of Andhra
Pradesh. Thus, balancing must be done as between those who
need protection and those who need no protection, i.e., who
belong to advantaged castes or tribes and who do not. Treating
the determination under Articles 341 and 342 of the Constitution
to be valid for all over the country would be in negation to the
very purpose and scheme and language of Articles 341 read with
Article 15(4) of the Constitution.”
8. The Hon’ble Supreme court in the case of Action
Committee (supra) in para 16 & 17 has held as under :-
“16. We may add that considerations for specifying a particular caste
or tribe or class for inclusion in the list of Scheduled Castes/Schedule
Tribes or backward classes in a given State would depend on the
nature and extent of disadvantages and social hardships suffered by
that caste, tribe or class in that State which may be totally non est in
another State to which persons belonging thereto may migrate.
Coincidentally it may be that a caste or tribe bearing the same
nomenclature is specified in two States but the considerations on the
basis of which they have been specified may be totally different. So
also the degree of disadvantages of various elements which
constitute the input for specification may also be totally different.
Therefore, merely because a given caste is specified in State A as a
Scheduled Caste does not necessarily mean that if there be another
caste bearing the same nomenclature in another State the person
belonging to the former would be entitled to the fights, privileges
and benefits admissible to a member of the Scheduled Caste of the
latter State "for the purposes of this Constitution". This is an aspect
which has to be kept in mind and which was very much in the minds
of the Constitution-makers as is evident from the choice of language
of Articles 341 and 342 of the Constitution. That is why in answer to
a question by Mr Jaipal Singh, Dr Ambedkar answered as under:
"He asked me another question and it was this.
Supposing a member of a Scheduled Tribe living in a tribal
area migrates to another part of the territory of India,
which is outside both the scheduled area and the tribal
area, will he be able to claim from the local Government,
within whose jurisdiction he may be residing the same
privileges which he would be entitled to when he is
residing within the scheduled area or within the tribal
area? It is a difficult question for me to answer. If that
matter is agitated in quarters where a decision on a
(Uploaded on 06/11/2026 at 02:42:38 PM)
(Downloaded on 06/11/2026 at 03:06:03 PM)

(6 of 7)
[2026:RJ-JD:55282-DB] [SAW-1695/2025]
matter like this would lie, we would certainly be able to
give some answer to the question in the form of some
clause in this Constitution. But so far as the present
Constitution stands, a member of a Scheduled Tribe going
outside the scheduled area or tribal area would certainly
not be entitled to carry with him the privileges that he is
entitled to when he is residing in a scheduled area or a
tribal area. So far as I can see, it will be practicably
impossible to enforce the provisions that apply to tribal
areas or scheduled areas, in areas other than those which
are covered by them...”
Relying on this statement the Constitution Bench ruled
that the petitioner was not entitled to admission to the
medical college on the basis that he belonged to a
Scheduled Tribe in the State of his origin.”
“17. Lastly the Constitution Bench referred to the cleavage in the
views of different High Courts on the interpretation of Articles 341
and 342 of the Constitution and the consequential orders passed by
the Government of India and the State Governments. It referred to
the two decisions of the Gujarat High Court as well as the decision
of the Karnataka High Court which place the interpretation
canvassed before us by Mr Raju Ramachandran. The other side
referred to the decisions of the Orissa High Court in K. Appa Rao v.
Director of Posts & Telegraphs, Orissa10 , the decision of the Full
Bench of the Bombay High Court in M.S. Malathi v. Commissioner,
Nagpur Division " and the decision of the Punjab & Haryana High
Court in V.B. Singh v. State of Punjab12 which take the contrary
view canvassed before us by the respondents. All these decisions
were considered by the Constitution Bench which agreed with the
latter view. It upheld the view expressed in the communication
dated 22-2-1985 and negatived the challenge of the petitioner that
the said view was ultra vires Articles 14 , 15 , 16 or 21. It, however,
observed that in the facts and circumstances of the case and having
regard to the fact that the petitioner student's career was involved
it directed the authorities to consider whether the petitioner was a
'Goudi' and if yes, the institution may consider if he can be allowed
to complete his studies in the institution. However, on the
interpretation of the relevant provisions of the Constitution this
Court was clear in its view that legally speaking he was not entitled
to admission in the Scheduled Tribe quota.”
9. In view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in
the judgments referred to hereinabove, we are in agreement with
the view taken by the learned Single Judge that a candidate
belonging to the Scheduled Tribe (ST) category in a State other
than the State of Rajasthan, upon applying for a post pursuant to
an advertisement stipulating that such a candidate shall be
considered under the General Category, would automatically be
dis-entitled to claim the benefit of reservation under the
Scheduled Tribe category.
(Uploaded on 06/11/2026 at 02:42:38 PM)
(Downloaded on 06/11/2026 at 03:06:03 PM)

(7 of 7)
[2026:RJ-JD:55282-DB] [SAW-1695/2025]
10. In view of the discussions made above, the appeal filed by
the appellant devoid of any force and consequently, the same is
dismissed.
11. All pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of
accordingly.
(CHANDRA SHEKHAR SHARMA),J (VINIT KUMAR MATHUR),J
Crt_2 (2039)
S-A/80
Anil Singh
(Uploaded on 06/11/2026 at 02:42:38 PM)
(Downloaded on 06/11/2026 at 03:06:03 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)