ST Candidate From One State Can't Claim Reservation In Another Merely Because Same Tribe Is Notified In Both States: Rajasthan High Court
The candidate was not excluded from the Nursing Officer recruitment; her candidature was considered under the General Category in accordance with an express condition in the advertisement.
The Rajasthan High Court has held that a candidate recognised as belonging to a Scheduled Tribe in another State cannot claim reservation under the ST category in Rajasthan merely because the same tribe is also notified as a Scheduled Tribe in Rajasthan.
Upholding the treatment of a Gujarat-origin candidate under the General Category, the Court dismissed her appeal against the rejection of her claim for Rajasthan’s ST reservation in the Nursing Officer recruitment.
The Court was hearing a special appeal against a Single Judge’s dismissal of the candidate’s writ petition challenging the State’s decision to consider her candidature under the General Category instead of the ST category.
A Bench of Justice Vinit Kumar Mathur and Justice Chandra Shekhar Sharma, while referring to Marri Chandra Shekhar Rao v/s Dean Seth G.S. Medical College (1990), observed: “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.”
The Apex Court, in Marri Chandra Shekhar Rao (1990), had held that "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".
Advocate C.S. Kotwani appeared for the candidate. Additional Advocate General N.S. Rajpurohit appeared for the State.
Background
The candidate hailed from Gujarat, where her caste was recognised as a Scheduled Tribe. After marrying a Rajasthan resident belonging to the same caste, she moved to Rajasthan and applied for appointment as a Nursing Officer, claiming the benefit of ST reservation.
The State declined to consider her under the ST category and instead treated her candidature under the General Category. The recruitment advertisement contained a specific condition that a reserved-category candidate migrating to Rajasthan would be considered under the General Category.
The Single Judge dismissed her writ petition by relying on Ranjana Kumari v. State of Uttarakhand (2018), which concerned the reservation status of a candidate who migrated from one State to another. The candidate then filed the special appeal before the Division Bench.
She argued that her caste was notified as a Scheduled Tribe in both Gujarat and Rajasthan and that her candidature should therefore have been considered under the ST category. The State relied on Marri Chandra Shekhar Rao v. Dean, Seth G.S. Medical College (1990) and Action Committee on Issue of Caste Certificate to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes in the State of Maharashtra v. Union of India (1994) to contend that State-specific reservation privileges do not travel with a candidate upon migration.
Court’s Observations
Reservation Privileges Do Not Travel Upon Migration
The Court referred to Marri Chandra Shekhar Rao (1990), in which the Supreme Court explained that migration itself remained unrestricted, but the special privileges attached to Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe status in the State of origin did not automatically extend to another State.
The Supreme Court had held: “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.”
The Supreme Court further explained that Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe specifications under Articles 341 and 342 of the Constitution were made in relation to particular States. It held that extending the special privileges granted in the State of origin throughout the country would negate that State-specific constitutional scheme.
Same Caste In Both States Did Not Confer Reservation Benefit
The Court also relied on Action Committee (1994), in which the Supreme Court held that the considerations for including a caste or tribe in a State’s reserved list depended on the disadvantages and social hardships experienced within that State. Those conditions could differ substantially elsewhere.
The reproduced passage stated: “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.”
The Court therefore rejected the argument that notification of the same caste as an ST in both Gujarat and Rajasthan entitled the candidate to Rajasthan’s reservation benefit. Her status in the State of origin did not confer the privileges available to members of the Scheduled Tribe constitutionally specified for Rajasthan.
Candidature Was Considered Under General Category
The Court recorded that the material facts concerning the candidate’s origin, migration and treatment in the recruitment process were undisputed.
It observed: “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 appellant was considered in general category.”
Applying the Supreme Court precedents and the advertisement’s express condition, the Division Bench agreed with the Single Judge that the candidate was disentitled to claim Rajasthan’s ST reservation. The State’s decision did not disqualify her from the recruitment process but required her candidature to be assessed under the General Category.
Conclusion
The Rajasthan High Court dismissed the special appeal and upheld the Single Judge’s refusal to direct consideration of the candidate under the ST category. It sustained the State’s decision to treat her as a General Category candidate for the Nursing Officer recruitment.
All pending applications were also disposed of.
Cause Title: Baria Sharmishtha Ben v. State of Rajasthan and Others (Neutral Citation: 2026:RJ-JD:55282-DB)
Appearances
Appellant: C.S. Kotwani, Advocate
State: N.S. Rajpurohit, Additional Advocate General, assisted by Kanchan Jodha, Advocate