01Facts
The appellant belonged to a caste recognised as a Scheduled Tribe (ST) in Gujarat. After marrying a person of the same caste in Rajasthan and residing there, she applied for a Nursing Officer post and claimed ST reservation. The State rejected her ST claim and considered her candidature under the General Category, consistently with a condition in the recruitment advertisement concerning candidates who migrated from another State
¶ 3, 5–6The Single Judge dismissed her writ petition, relying on *Ranjana Kumari v. State of Uttarakhand*; the appellant challenged that decision in this appeal
¶ 2–302Issues
i.1. Whether a person recognised as an ST in Gujarat may claim ST reservation for a Rajasthan State post after migrating to Rajasthan, including where the same caste is also recognised as an ST there
¶ 4, 6, 9ii.2. Whether the Single Judge’s dismissal of the writ petition warranted interference in light of the recruitment advertisement’s condition that candidates migrating from another State would be considered in the General Category
¶ 5–6, 903Law Applied
Articles 341 and 342 of the Constitution provide for State-specific identification of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes.
¶ 7Under *Marri Chandra Shekhar Rao v. Dean, Seth G.S. Medical College*, (1990) 3 SCC 130, a person migrating to another State does not carry the special reservation privileges conferred in the State of origin; the State-specific scheme must be read harmoniously with the constitutional rights of all citizens.
¶ 7*Action Committee on Issue of Caste Certificate to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes in the State of Maharashtra v. Union of India*, (1994) 5 SCC 244, affirms that the social disadvantages and grounds for recognition may differ between States, so a person recognised as belonging to an ST in one State is not, by that fact alone, entitled to the corresponding benefits in another State.
¶ 8The Single Judge had also relied on *Ranjana Kumari v. State of Uttarakhand*, (2019) 15 SCC 664.
¶ 304Reasoning
The Court treated the appellant’s Gujarat ST status and subsequent migration to Rajasthan as undisputed.
¶ 6Applying *Marri Chandra Shekhar Rao* and *Action Committee*, it held that recognition in the State of origin does not transfer reservation benefits to the State of migration, even where a caste bears the same nomenclature, because the basis and degree of disadvantage may be State-specific.
¶ 7–9The advertisement’s condition that migrants would be considered in the General Category further supported the State’s treatment of the appellant’s candidature.
¶ 5, 905Holding
The Court held that the appellant was not entitled to claim ST reservation in Rajasthan on the basis of her Gujarat status and found no ground to interfere with the Single Judge’s decision.
¶ 9The special appeal was dismissed, and any pending applications were also disposed of.
¶ 10–11Original Court PDF
BARIA SHARMISHTHA BENvsSTATE OF RAJASTHAN
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in
