Dadra and Nagar Haveli ST reservation depends on residence, not tribal origin, Bombay HC rules in MBBS admission case

Petitioner No. 1 and his family had resided in the Union Territory of Dadra and Nagar Haveli and Daman and Diu (DNH) since 1996; Petitioner No. 2 was born there in 2008, completed his education there, and held a DNH domicile certificate and a caste certificate identifying him as belonging to the Hindu Dhodia Scheduled Tribe.

After Petitioner No. 2 applied for MBBS admission, Respondent No. 4 changed his online category from ST to Unreserved and treated him as a migrant from Gujarat; he was consequently excluded from the ST merit list.

The Petitioners sought restoration of his ST status, inclusion in the ST merit list, and allotment of an ST seat.

The Court had earlier directed that one DNH-ST seat be reserved for him pending the petition.

1. Whether a candidate who is a permanent resident of DNH, and whose tribe is recognised as an ST in the Territory, may be denied an ST-reserved MBBS seat on the ground that the candidate or the candidate’s family migrated from Gujarat.

2. Whether Respondent No. 4 could alter Petitioner No. 2’s online category from ST to UR and exclude him from the ST merit list on that basis.

The Court applied the principle in Director, Transport Department, UT Administration of Dadra & Nagar Haveli, Silvassa v. Abhinav Dipakbhai Patel, (2019) 6 SCC 434, that, for the DNH Presidential notification at issue, entitlement to ST reservation turns on residence in the Union Territory and not origin.

It also relied on Dipak Kumar Jagubhai Patel v. Union of India, W.P. No. 10868 of 2019, and Durgeshkumar Lallubhai Patel v. Union of India, W.P. No. 11033 of 2025, applying that principle in educational-admission cases.

The Court rejected the contention that Article 342(1) or the DNH Scheduled Tribes Order required the candidate or the candidate’s parents to have had their permanent abode in DNH on the Order’s notification date; it held that residence in the Territory was determinative.

It further held that the residence-based rule applied irrespective of whether the claim concerned public employment or admission to education.

Petitioner No. 2 was born and educated in DNH, had lived there throughout his life, and held both a DNH domicile certificate and a caste certificate issued by the Territory recognising him as a member of the Hindu Dhodia ST.

Those facts established residence for the purpose of the applicable Presidential notification.

The Gujarat origin of the family, including the source of the earlier caste documentation, did not displace that residence-based entitlement under Abhinav Dipakbhai Patel.

The Court also rejected Respondent No. 4’s attempt to distinguish the cited cases as employment matters: the same interpretation governed the reservation claim in an educational-admission case, as confirmed by prior decisions of the High Court.

Accordingly, treating Petitioner No. 2 as a migrant and changing his category to UR was legally unsustainable.

It quashed the alteration of Petitioner No. 2’s online form from ST to UR and the treatment of him as a migrant; it also set aside his exclusion from the ST merit list.

The Respondents were directed to include him in the ST merit list according to his marks and allot him one ST MBBS seat at Respondent No. 4 College for the 2026–2027 academic year.

The petition was disposed of without costs, and the Court rejected Respondent No. 4’s application to stay the judgment.