Vineeta Sahu vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:7616
1 WP-81-2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR

BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ASHISH SHROTI
th
ON THE 26 OF FEBRUARY, 2026
WRIT PETITION No. 81 of 2023
SADHNA SAHU
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
WITH
WRIT PETITION No. 83 of 2023
VINEETA SAHU
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Mr. Krishna Kant Shrivastava - Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. K.K. Prajapati - GA for the State.
ORDER
The petitioner Smt. Sadhna Sahu (W.P. No.81/2023) was originally a
resident of District Lalitpur in the State of Uttar Pradesh. Her parents belong
to Sahu 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 Lalitpur (Uttar Pradesh) on 24.08.2017. She was married
on 29.04.2018 to one Satendra Sahu, who is a resident of Ramnagar,
Chanderi, District Ashoknagar in Madhya Pradesh. Accordingly, she
migrated to District Ashoknagar in the State of Madhya Pradesh. Her
husband also belongs to Sahu community, which is notified as OBC in the
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: BARKHA
SHARMA
Signing time: 02/27/2026
11:04:45 AM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:7616
2 WP-81-2023
State of Madhya Pradesh.

2. Likewise, the petitioner Vinita Sahu (W.P. No.83/2023) also
belongs to District Lalitpur in the State of Uttar Pradesh and she also holds
an OBC caste certificate issued by the competent authority of District
Lalitpur (Uttar Pradesh) on 24.08.2015. She was married on 17.04.2012 to
one Deepak Sahu, resident of Mungaoli, District Ashoknagar (M.P.), and
thus migrated to District Ashoknagar in M.P. Her husband also belongs to
the Sahu community, which is notified as OBC in the State of Madhya
Pradesh.
3. The petitioners participated in the Middle School Teachers
Eligibility Test-2018 conducted by the School Education Department and
Tribal Welfare Department for appointment to the post of Middle School
Teacher. Both the petitioners successfully qualified the test. They were
called for document verification by the District Education Officer,
Ashoknagar. Upon verification of the documents, their candidature was
rejected on the ground that their caste certificates belonged to another State.
A copy of the communication dated 23.11.2022 in this regard has been
placed on record as Annexure P/7 in both the writ petitions.
4. Challenging their disqualification, the petitioners have filed these
writ petitions praying for the following reliefs:
A. The Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to set-aside
(Annex.P-7) the impugned rejection order of candidature of
Middle Teacher English as OBS category candidate.
B The Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to set-aside the
circular issued by the GAD dated 11.07.2011 (Annex.P-9) and
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: BARKHA
SHARMA
Signing time: 02/27/2026
11:04:45 AM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:7616
3 WP-81-2023
circular issued by the GAD dated 13.01.2014 (Annex.P-
10) to the extent of the contravence to bea candidate in OBS
category for petitioner in recruitment on public post in the State of
Madhya Pradesh.
C The Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the
respondents to provide appointment as Middle Teacher English as
OBC category candidate in recruitment through Teacher
Eligibility Test, 2018.
D Any other relief the Hon’ble Court may be please to deem fit
and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case in the interest
of justice.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners
belong to Sahu community, which is recognized as OBC in the State of Uttar
Pradesh. Their caste certificates have been issued by the competent authority
of District Lalitpur (U.P.). He then submitted that the aforesaid caste is
recognized as OBC in the State of Madhya Pradesh also and, therefore, the
petitioners could not have been denied the benefit of reservation in the matter
of selection.
6. Learned counsel further submitted that the petitioners migrated to
the State of Madhya Pradesh on account of their marriage. Their husbands
also belong to the same caste and, therefore, by virtue of their marriage also,
the petitioners are entitled to be treated as members of the OBC category in
the State of Madhya Pradesh. Learned counsel thus submitted that the action
of the respondents in denying the appointment to the petitioners to the post
in question is illegal and deserves to be set aside.
7. On the other hand, counsel for the respondents supported the action
of the respondents. It is his submission that the petitioner is admittedly
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: BARKHA
SHARMA
Signing time: 02/27/2026
11:04:45 AM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:7616
4 WP-81-2023
holding the caste certificate which is issued by the authority of the State of

Uttar Pradesh. It is his submission that by virtue of their marriage, the
petitioners would not became 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 their birth and not on their
marriage. The learned counsel referred to the instructions issued by the
General Administration Department vide circular dated 06.04.2021 to say
that on their migration to the State of M.P., after marriage, the petitioners
would not be entitled to benefit of their caste by virtue of caste certificates
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.
8. Considered the arguments and perused the record.
9. The facts which are not disputed in these cases are that both the
petitioners hold OBC caste certificates issued by the competent authority of
District Lalitpur in the State of Uttar Pradesh. They migrated to the State of
Madhya Pradesh on account of their marriage. It is also not in dispute that
the caste of both the petitioners is recognized as OBC in State of U.P. as also
in M.P.
10. Thus, the issue for determination is as to whether, on the basis of
the caste certificates issued by the competent authority in the State of Uttar
Pradesh, the petitioners are entitled to claim the benefit of the OBC category
in the State of Madhya Pradesh.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: BARKHA
SHARMA
Signing time: 02/27/2026
11:04:45 AM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:7616
5 WP-81-2023
11. 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 decision 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
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
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: BARKHA
SHARMA
Signing time: 02/27/2026
11:04:45 AM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:7616
6 WP-81-2023
would be defeated, if Annexure P/1 & P/2 are upheld also has no
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."

12. 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 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’."
13. The similar view has been taken by Coordinate Benches of this
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: BARKHA
SHARMA
Signing time: 02/27/2026
11:04:45 AM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:7616
7 WP-81-2023
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.
14. 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 entitle such person to get the benefit of his caste in the migrating State.
15. The petitioners are, therefore, not entitled to claim the benefit of
their caste in State of Madhya Pradesh on the basis of their caste certificates
issued by the competent authority in the State of Uttar Pradesh.
16. In view of the aforesaid, the action of the respondents is found to
be just and proper and does not warrant any interference by this Court. The
same is upheld.
17. The petitions are, accordingly, dismissed.
(ASHISH SHROTI)
JUDGE
bj/-

Signature Not Verified
Signed by: BARKHA
SHARMA
Signing time: 02/27/2026
11:04:45 AM