YGOENDRA PRATAP SINGH vs STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

2026:UHC:4120

HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR TIWARI
Writ Petition Service Single No. 2557 of 2019
25 May, 2026



Ygoendra Pratap Singh --Petitioner
Versus

State of Uttarakhand and others --Respondents


-------------------------------------------------------------------
Presence:-
Mr. Jitendra Chaudhary, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Rakesh Singh Kunwar , Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State of
Uttarakhand.
Mr. Mukesh Kapruwan, Advocate for respondent no. 6.
-------------------------------------------------------------------

JUDGMENT

Respondent no. 6 was born on 15.04.1990
and he was issued a caste certificate by Tehsildar,
Sakaldeeha, District Chandauli (U.P.) on 11.09.2015,
whereby he was declared to be Scheduled Caste of
State of Uttar Pradesh. He thereafter obtained another
Caste Certificate from Tehsildar, Doiwala, District
Dehradun in State of Uttarakhand, on 14.12.2016. On
the strength of Caste Certificate dated 11.09.2015,
issued by Tehsildar, Sakaldeeha, District Chandauli
(U.P.), respondent no. 6 was appointed as Forest Guard
against a vacancy reserved for Scheduled Caste of
Uttarakhand. Appointment given to respondent no. 6,
however, was cancelled by the competent authority in
2017; which was challenged by him in WPSS No. 1017
of 2017, which was disposed of with liberty to him to
approach the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests,
1

2026:UHC:4120
who shall examine the matter and pass appropriate
order, within six weeks. The Chief Conservator of
Forests, vide order dated 24.08.2019, has upheld the
appointment given to respondent no. 6 on the strength
of caste certificate issued by State of U.P. on
11.09.2015. Petitioner has challenged the said order in
this writ petition.
2. Petitioner contends that he also participated
in the selection in which respondent no. 6 was selected
and appointed; since respondent no. 6 wrongly
obtained appointment based on caste certificate issued
from State of U.P., therefore, selection and
appointment of respondent no. 6 is liable to be set
aside.
3. The facts on which there is no dispute is that
State of origin of respondent no. 6 is Successor State of
Uttar Pradesh, as he belongs to District Chandauli. It is
also not in dispute that respondent no. 6 was issued a
Certificate on 11.09.2015, declaring him to be
Scheduled Caste of State of Uttar Pradesh, by Tehsildar
Sakaldeeha (Chandauli).
4. Learned counsel for respondent no. 6 submits
that the Caste Certificate, issued by competent
authority in State of U.P. in favour of his client, was
cancelled on his request and thereafter he was issued
another Caste Certificate by Tehsildar, Doiwala in
District Dehradun. He, however, could not show any
document in support of the contention that the Caste
Certificate issued in favour of respondent no. 6 in 2015
was subsequently cancelled by the competent authority
2

2026:UHC:4120
in State of Uttar Pradesh.
5. Learned counsel for respondent no. 6
contends that father of respondent no. 6 was serving
as Chaukidar in Forest Department in District Dehradun
since 1980 and respondent no. 6 was born and bought
up at Dehradun.
6. This contention, however, is disputed by
Mr. Jitendra Chaudhary, learned counsel appearing for
petitioner, who submits that birth place of respondent
no. 6 is Tehsil Sakaldeeha, District Chandauli in State
of U.P. and Caste Certificate was also issued in his
favour by Tehsildar of that Tehsil in District Chandauli
in 2015.
7. The question, which falls for consideration, is
whether a person belonging to Scheduled Caste or
Scheduled Tribe can claim reservation in a State other
than the State of his origin. In other words, whether
benefit of reservation can be availed in the State where
such person migrates for employment or some other
purpose.
8. A Division Bench of this Court in WPSB No.
297 of 2007 (Smt. Ranjana Kumari v. State of
Uttaranchal and another) while dealing with similar
question held as under:-
“7. Petitioner produced a caste certificate, showing that
she is wife of a gentleman residing at Dehradun, and that,
she belongs to Valmiki caste, which is a Scheduled Caste
of the State. There is no dispute that the petitioner is
daughter of a person who belongs to Valmiki caste.
Accordingly, there is also no dispute that the petitioner
belongs to Valmiki caste. The father of the petitioner is,
however, a resident of the State of Punjab. In such view
of the matter, petitioner is also a Scheduled Caste of the
3

2026:UHC:4120
State of Punjab. Petitioner has migrated to the State of
Uttarakhand after having had married a resident of this
State.
8. It is being contended that since she is thus married
and, accordingly, is permanently residing in this State and
since Valmiki caste is also a Scheduled Caste for the State
of Uttarakhand, she should be regarded as a Scheduled
Caste of this State.
9. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon a
judgment of a Division Bench of this Court, rendered in
the case of Jyoti Bala v. State of Uttarakhand ,
reported in 2009 (1) U.D, 1, for the proposition that the
petitioner is entitled to a caste certificate, showing that
she belongs to Scheduled Caste of this State. The
judgment, referred to above, deals with domicile
certificate and addresses the issue, principally,
on Sections 15 and 16 of the Indian Succession Act,
1925, proceeding on the basis that the said sections
apply to Hindus. The fact remains that in terms of
the provisions of the Indian Succession Act, 1925,
the said sections do not apply to Hindus.
10. Be that as it may, the said judgment had and has no
bearing in the matter of grant of a Scheduled Caste
certificate. The right of a Scheduled Caste is created on
the date he or she is born. Since that right is affixed with
the birth of the person, the same is affixed with the State
in which such right has accrued. Petitioner, therefore, as a
member of Scheduled Caste community, acquired rights
applicable to members of the Scheduled Caste community
of the State of Punjab on and simultaneously with her
birth in Punjab. The moment she migrated to the State of
Uttarakhand, whether on being married or otherwise, she
did not bring with her the right that she acquired in the
State of Punjab. So far as the State of Uttarakhand is
concerned, she never acquired any such right.”

9. The judgment rendered by Division Bench in
the case of Smt. Ranjana Kumari (supra) was affirmed
by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No(s) 8425 of
2013. Para 4 of the said judgment is reproduced
below:-
“4. Two Constitution Bench judgments of this Court
in Marri Chandra Shekhar Rao v. Dean, Seth G.S. Medical
College & Ors. and Action Committee on Issue of Caste
Certificate to Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes in
the State of Maharashtra v. Union of India & Anr. 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
4

2026:UHC:4120
in Marri Chandra Shekhar Rao (supra) and Action
Committee (supra).

10. This Court, vide judgment dated 12.11.2025,
rendered in WPSS No. 462 of 2025 relied upon the
aforesaid judgment and held as under:-
“14. From perusal of the judgments referred to above, it
is apparent that benefit of reservation can be availed of
by a person only in the State to which he/she originally
belonged and upon migration to some other State, for
whatever reason, one would not be entitled to reservation
in State Services of State to which he/she migrates. This
view is supported by the 11 2025:UHC:9991 judgment
dated 29.08.2011 rendered by Division Bench of this
Court in WPSB No. 297 of 2007, which was affirmed by
Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 8425 of 2013,
vide judgment dated 02.11.2018.”

11. The ratio of the aforesaid judgments applies
to the facts of the present case also. Admittedly, Uttar
Pradesh is the State of origin in respect of respondent
no. 6 and he was also issued a Caste Certificate from
that State. There is nothing on record to show that the
Caste Certificate issued by State of Uttar Pradesh is
withdrawn or cancelled. Merely because respondent no.
6 managed to obtain a caste certificate, issued in his
favour by competent authority in State of Uttarakhand
will not alter his original status and his origin continues
to remain in State of Uttar Pradesh. Law is well settled
that benefit of reservation is available to a person only
in his State of origin and not in the State to which
he/she migrates. Moreover, no one can have two
States of origin. Since petitioner was earlier issued
caste certificate by State of U.P., therefore, his State of
origin will be deemed to be Uttar Pradesh and not
Uttarakhand.

5

2026:UHC:4120
12. Thus viewed, the order dated 24.08.2019,
passed by Principal Chief Conservator of Forests,
impugned in this writ petition is unsustainable in the
eyes of law.
13. Accordingly, the impugned order dated
24.08.2019 is set aside. The writ petition is allowed
and the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests is
directed to re-consider the issue in the light of law
declared by Hon’ble Supreme Court on the point. In the
event, the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests
decides against the respondent no. 6, then petitioner
shall be at liberty to stake claim for appointment by
making representation to the competent authority,
which shall be dealt with, as per law.

( Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.)
25 May, 2026
Navin


6