Court’s Decision
The Punjab and Haryana High Court, in a significant ruling delivered by Justice Harpreet Singh Brar, held that “the benefits of reservation cannot be made portable across States, as they are contingent upon the socio-economic realities of a specific geographical region.” The Court dismissed the petition challenging the denial of Backward Class (BC) reservation by the Punjab State Power Corporation Limited (PSPCL), observing that the petitioner, though born in Punjab, could not claim reservation benefits as his father was originally domiciled in Himachal Pradesh.
Facts
The petitioner had applied for the post of Assistant Engineer/OT (Electrical) advertised by PSPCL on 27 November 2024, where two posts were reserved for the Backward Class category. He appeared for the GATE 2024 exam, scored 30 out of 100 marks—above the BC cut-off—and secured the 17th position in the merit list. Claiming to belong to the Jhinwar community recognized as BC under the Punjab Government’s 1955 notification, the petitioner furnished his caste and domicile certificates issued by the Tehsildar, Amritsar.
However, the PSPCL rejected his claim stating that as his father had migrated to Punjab from Himachal Pradesh in 1999, the petitioner was ineligible for Punjab’s BC quota. The grandfather’s residence was in Tehsil Una, District Hoshiarpur (erstwhile Punjab), which became part of Himachal Pradesh after the 1966 reorganization. The petitioner was born in Punjab in 2000, but PSPCL maintained that his BC status was applicable only to his state of origin, not Punjab. Hence, his claim was declined through order dated 19 May 2025.
Issues
- Whether a person whose ancestors belonged to a caste recognized as BC in Punjab but migrated to another state after reorganization can claim BC reservation in Punjab.
- Whether the petitioner, born and domiciled in Punjab, can be treated as a migrant for reservation purposes under the constitutional framework.
- Whether the rejection of BC benefit by PSPCL violated the petitioner’s right to equality under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.
Petitioner’s Arguments
The petitioner contended that he is a bona fide resident of Punjab, having been born and educated in Amritsar. He emphasized that his community (Jhinwar) was listed as a Backward Class under the Punjab Government’s 1955 notification. He argued that his grandfather’s residence was in Tehsil Una, which was part of Punjab when the notification was issued; therefore, he could not be termed a migrant. He relied on Gurvinder Singh v. State of Punjab (2023), where the High Court held that domicile in Punjab at the time of notification is crucial for reservation claims. Thus, he asserted that denial of BC status was arbitrary and contrary to Article 16(4).
Respondent’s Arguments
The PSPCL opposed the plea stating that under government clarifications, reservation benefits cannot be extended to migrants from other states. The petitioner’s father had migrated from Himachal Pradesh in 1999, and hence the petitioner’s caste certificate from Amritsar could not entitle him to Punjab’s BC quota. Referring to Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment clarifications (letters dated 25 November 2002 and 8 April 1994), the respondent submitted that BC recognition is restricted to the state where such caste is notified. Since the petitioner’s family hailed from Himachal, they were entitled to claim BC benefits only there, not in Punjab.
Analysis of the Law
The Court extensively referred to government notifications and constitutional provisions to clarify that caste-based reservation is territorial and not transferable. It relied on the Ministry’s 2002 circular which stated that the “place of residence of parents at the time of issuance of notification determines caste-based eligibility.” The 1994 clarification reiterated that while a state may issue OBC certificates to migrants for record purposes, benefits are limited to their state of origin.
The Court observed that Article 342A of the Constitution empowers the President and the Governor to identify socially and educationally backward classes “with respect to any State or Union Territory.” Hence, backward class recognition is necessarily state-specific. A community’s inclusion in one state does not automatically entitle its members to claim reservation in another.
Precedent Analysis
The Court drew upon several landmark judgments to reinforce its conclusion:
- Marri Chandra Shekhar Rao v. Dean, Seth G.S. Medical College (1990) 3 SCC 130 — The Supreme Court held that reservation benefits are not uniform across India, as social disadvantages differ among states.
- M.C.D. v. Veena (2001) 6 SCC 571 — The Court ruled that caste or group recognition for reservation depends on state-specific backwardness and cannot be generalized nationwide.
- Bir Singh v. Delhi Jal Board (2018) 10 SCC 312 — A Constitution Bench affirmed that reservations under Article 16(4) are confined to the geographical limits of the state where the caste is recognized.
- State of Uttaranchal v. Sandeep Kumar Singh (2010) 12 SCC 794 — The Supreme Court reiterated that extending state-based caste benefits beyond notified limits would violate Articles 341 and 342.
Collectively, these precedents emphasize that backward class status is linked to socio-economic conditions of a particular state and not to individual migration or domicile.
Court’s Reasoning
Justice Brar held that the petitioner’s claim was untenable since his father’s permanent abode at the time of Punjab’s 1955 notification was in Himachal Pradesh. Even though the petitioner was born in Punjab, he could not inherit a BC status recognized in a different state. The Court reasoned that “the idea of backwardness is contextual and territorial; it cannot travel with the individual.” Allowing reservation portability, it warned, would distort equitable resource distribution and deny opportunities to genuinely disadvantaged groups within Punjab.
The Court also referred to PSPCL’s recruitment advertisement that expressly limited reservations to “candidates of Punjab domicile only.” Thus, PSPCL’s rejection was in accordance with both statutory and constitutional requirements.
Conclusion
The High Court dismissed the writ petition, upholding PSPCL’s decision and holding that the petitioner could not claim reservation in Punjab merely on the basis of birth or residence when his ancestral domicile lay in Himachal Pradesh. The judgment reaffirmed that reservation benefits under the Backward Class category are state-specific and non-transferable, emphasizing that “the constitutional philosophy of affirmative action cannot be stretched beyond the territorial realities that define social disadvantage.”
Implications
This ruling reinforces the territorial nature of reservation benefits and underscores that the social and economic criteria underpinning caste recognition are local, not pan-Indian. It serves as an important precedent for public employment authorities dealing with applicants who claim caste benefits from states other than their origin. The Court’s reasoning fortifies the constitutional scheme under Articles 15(4) and 16(4), ensuring equitable and state-specific implementation of affirmative action.