Madhya Pradesh High Court
Smt. Hemlata Arya vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 29 April, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:13879
1 WP-7568-2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANAND SINGH BAHRAWAT
ON THE 29th OF APRIL, 2026
WRIT PETITION No. 7568 of 2018
SMT. HEMLATA ARYA
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Mahesh Goyal - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri B.M. Patel - Government Advocate for State.
Shri Bhanu Prakash Singh- Advocate for respondent No.5.
ORDER
This petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, has been
filed seeking following relief(s):
(i) Order dated 4.1.2018 (Annexure P/1) passed by the Additional
Commissioner Chambal Division, Morena in Case No.
0377/2016-17/Appeal be quashed/set aside.
(ii) Any other relief which this Hon’ble Court thinks appropriate in
the facts and circumstances of the case may be granted in favour
of the petitioner.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is a
permanent resident of Ward No. 8, Baroda, Tahsil Baroda, District Sheopur
(M.P.), and had applied for appointment to the post of Anganwadi Worker,
being a member of the Scheduled Castes. It is contended that respondent No.
4, the Project Officer, illegally appointed one Famida Bano as Anganwadi
Worker. The said order was challenged by the petitioner before the
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VIJAY TRIPATHI
Signing time: 4/30/2026
10:37:16 AM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:13879
2 WP-7568-2018
Additional Collector, Sheopur. Thereafter, on 16.11.2016, respondent No. 5,
Smt. Kirti Sharma, was appointed as Anganwadi Worker by the Project
Officer, allegedly ignoring the eligibility of the petitioner. The petitioner
challenged the aforesaid order by filing an appeal before the Additional
Collector, District Sheopur, which was allowed on 26.07.2017, with a
direction to issue an order of appointment in favour of the petitioner. In
pursuance of the order dated 26.07.2017, the petitioner was appointed as
Anganwadi Worker on 29.08.2017.
3. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order dated 26.07.2017,
respondent No. 5, Kirti Sharma, preferred an appeal before the Additional
Commissioner, Chambal Division, Morena. Vide order dated 04.01.2018, the
Additional Commissioner set aside the order of the Additional Collector,
Sheopur, and directed that a fresh appointment to the post of Anganwadi
Worker be made after affording an opportunity of hearing to the concerned
parties. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the Collector
has recorded a categorical finding that the Scheduled Caste certificate issued
in favour of the petitioner is valid throughout India, and accordingly, the
petitioner is entitled to 61.5 marks, whereas the other candidates are less
meritorious.
4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents opposed the
submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioner and submitted that the caste
certificate dated 05.09.2016 has been issued by the Government of Rajasthan
through the SDO, Sub-Division Kota, State of Rajasthan. It is further
submitted that the petitioner cannot claim the benefit of reservation in the
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VIJAY TRIPATHI
Signing time: 4/30/2026
10:37:16 AM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:13879
3 WP-7568-2018
State of Madhya Pradesh, as the petitioner’s home State is Rajasthan, and
therefore, she is not entitled to the benefit of a Scheduled Caste certificate in
the State of Madhya Pradesh.
5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
6. Admittedly, the caste certificate of the petitioner has been issued by
the SDO, Kota, State of Rajasthan. It is a settled position of law that the
benefit of reservation can be extended only in the home State. As the
petitioner’s home State is Rajasthan, the benefit of the Scheduled Castes
category cannot be extended to her in the State of Madhya Pradesh.
7. The controversy involved in the present case regarding the Caste
Certificate has already been decided by this Court vide order dated
14.10.2025 passed in W.P.No. 7745/2014 [Smt. Saini vs. The State of
Madhya Pradesh & Ors.], relevant part of which reads as under:-
“5.The person belonging to the S.C. or S.T. or O.B.C. in one
State cannot be deemed to be S.C. or S.T. or OBC in relation to
any other State to which he migrates and the expressions “in
relation to that State or Union Territory” and “for the purpose of
this Constitution” used in Article 341 and 342 would mean that
benefit of reservation provided by the Constitution stands confined
to geographical territories of State/UT in respect of which lists of
SCs/STs have been notified by Presidential Orders issued from
time to time and persons notified as SC or ST or OBC in State A
cannot claim the same status in another State on the basis that he
is declared as a SC or ST or OBC in State A.
6. The person who is recognized as a member of SC or ST or
OBC in the original state will be entitled to all the benefits of
reservation under the Constitution in that State only and not in
other States/Union Territories and would not be entitled to theSignature Not Verified
Signed by: VIJAY TRIPATHI
Signing time: 4/30/2026
10:37:16 AM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:138794 WP-7568-2018
benefits of reservation in the migrated State and Union Territories.
[Bir Singh Vs. Delhi Jal Board and others, reported in (2018) 10
SCC 312].
7. While construing the provisions of Article 341 and 342 of
the Constitution, it was observed that where the question of fate of
those scheduled caste and scheduled tribe students who get the
protection of being classed as scheduled caste or scheduled tribes
in ‘the States of origin when, because of transfer or movement of
their father or guardian’s business or service, they move to other
States as a matter of voluntary (sic involuntary) transfer, will they
be entitled to some sort of protective treatment so that they may
continue or pursue their education, has opined that where the
migration from one State to other is involuntary, by force of
circumstances either of employment or of profession, in such
cases if students or persons apply in the migrated State where
without affecting prejudicially the rights of the scheduled castes or
scheduled tribes in those States or areas, any facility or protection
for continuance of study or admission can be given to one who has
so migrated then some consideration is desirable to be made on
that ground, but for that the issue was left for the legislature to
promulgate appropriate legislation bearing this aspect and in that
case also it was held that the petitioner therein was not entitled to
get admission in the Medical College on the basis that he belongs
to the Scheduled Tribe in his original State. [Marri Chandra
Shekhar Rao Vs. Dean, Seth G.S. Medical College and others,
reported in (1990) 3 SCC 130].
8. In Marri Chandra Shekhar Rao (supra) and Action Committee
v/s Union of India & Another reported in (1994) 5 SCC 244,
Hon’ble Apex Court has held as under:-
In Marri Chandra (supra):-
“13. It is trite knowledge that the statutory and constitutional
provisions should be interpreted broadly and harmoniously. It is
trite saying that where there is conflict between two provisions,
these should be so interpreted as to give effect to both. Nothing is
surplus in a Constitution and no part should be made nugatory.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VIJAY TRIPATHI
Signing time: 4/30/2026
10:37:16 AM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:13879
5 WP-7568-2018
This is well settled. See the observations of this Court in
Venkataramana Devaru v. State of Mysore AIR 1958 SC 255 ,
where Venkatarama Aiyer, J. reiterated that the rule of
construction is well settled and where there are in an enactment
two provisions which cannot be reconciled with each other, these
should be so interpreted that, if possible, effect could be given to
both. It, however, appears to us that the expression ‘for the
purposes of this Constitution’ in Article 341 as well as in Article
342 do imply that the Scheduled Caste and the Scheduled Tribes
so specified would be entitled to enjoy all the constitutional rights
that are enjoyable by all the citizens as such. Constitutional right,
e.g., it has been argued that right to migration or right to move
from one part to another is a right given to all — to Scheduled
Castes or Tribes and to nonscheduled castes or tribes. But 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. 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. There should be
harmonious construction, harmonious in the sense that both parts
or all parts of a constitutional provision should be so read that one
part does not become nugatory to the other or denuded to the other
but all parts must be read in the context in which these are used. It
was contended that the only way in which the fundamental rights
of the petitioner under Articles 14, 19(1)(d), 19(1)(e) and 19(1)(f)
could be given effect to is by construing Article 342 in a manner
by which a member of a Scheduled Tribe gets the benefit of that
status for the purposes of the Constitution throughout the territory
of India. It was submitted that the words “for the purposes of this
Constitution” must be given full effect. There is no dispute about
that. The words “for the purposes of this Constitution” must mean
that a Scheduled Caste so designated must have right under
Articles 14, 19(1)(d), 19(1)(e) and 19(1)(f) inasmuch as these are
applicable to him in his area where he migrates or where he goes.
The expression “in relation to that State” would become nugatory
if in all States the special privileges or the rights granted to
Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes are carried forward. It will
also be inconsistent with the whole purpose of the scheme of
reservation. In Andhra Pradesh, a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled
Tribe may require protection because a boy or a child who grows
in that area is inhibited or is at disadvantage. In Maharashtra that
caste or that tribe may not be so inhibited but other castes or tribes
might be. If a boy or a child goes to that atmosphere of
Maharashtra as a young boy or a child and goes in a completely
different atmosphere or Maharashtra where this inhibition or this
disadvantage is not there, then he cannot be said to have that
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VIJAY TRIPATHI
Signing time: 4/30/2026
10:37:16 AM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:13879
6 WP-7568-2018
reservation which will denude the children or the people of
Maharashtra belonging to any segment of that State who may still
require that protection. After all, it has to be borne in mind that the
protection is necessary for the disadvantaged castes or tribes of
Maharashtra as well as disadvantaged castes or tribes of Andhra
Pradesh. Thus, balancing must be done as between those who
need protection and those who need no protection, i.e., who belong
to advantaged castes or tribes and who do not. Treating the
determination under Articles 341 and 342 of the Constitution to be
valid for all over the country would be in negation to the very
purpose and scheme and language of Article 341 read with
Article 15(4) of the Constitution.
In Action Committee (supra)
“16. We may add that considerations for specifying a particular
caste or tribe or class for inclusion in the list of Scheduled
Castes/Schedule Tribes or backward classes in a given State would
depend on the nature and extent of disadvantages and social
hardships suffered by that caste, tribe or class in that State which
may be totally non est in another State to which persons belonging
thereto may migrate. 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. Therefore, merely because a given caste is
specified in State A as a Scheduled Caste does not necessarily
mean that if there be another caste bearing the same nomenclature
in another State the person belonging to the former would be
entitled to the rights, privileges and benefits admissible to a
member of the Scheduled Caste of the latter State “for the
purposes of this Constitution”. This is an aspect which has to be
kept in mind and which was very much in the minds of the
Constitution-makers as is evident from the choice of language of
Articles 341 and 342 of the Constitution. That is why in answer to
a question by Mr Jaipal Singh, Dr Ambedkar answered as under:
“He asked me another question and it was this. Supposing a
member of a Scheduled Tribe living in a tribal area migrates
to another part of the territory of India, which is outside both
the scheduled area and the tribal area, will he be able to claim
from the local Government, within whose jurisdiction he may
be residing the same privileges which he would be entitled to
when he is residing within the scheduled area or within the
tribal area? It is a difficult question for me to answer. If that
matter is agitated in quarters where a decision on a matter
like this would lie, we would certainly be able to give some
answer to the question in the form of some clause in this
Constitution. But so far as the present Constitution stands, a
member of a Scheduled Tribe going outside the scheduled
area or tribal area would certainly not be entitled to carry
with him the privileges that he is entitled to when he isSignature Not Verified
Signed by: VIJAY TRIPATHI
Signing time: 4/30/2026
10:37:16 AM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:138797 WP-7568-2018
residing in a scheduled area or a tribal area. So far as I can
see, it will be practicably impossible to enforce the
provisions that apply to tribal areas or scheduled areas, in
areas other than those which are covered by them….”
Relying on this statement the Constitution Bench ruled that the
petitioner was not entitled to admission to the medical college on
the basis that he belonged to a Scheduled Tribe in the State of
his origin.”
Aforesaid view has been followed by Apex Court in Ranjana
Kumari vs. State of Uttarakhand & Ors. (2019) 15 SCC 664 and
Bhadar Ram (Dead) through Legal Representatives vs. Jassa Ram
& Ors. (2022) 4 SCC 259.
9. 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 SC 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 SC 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. 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. The social, economic and educational
backwardness are factors, which are never identical or even
similar in two different States.
10. The benefit of caste would be available to them who were
migrants of Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe in other State,
who had migrated before 1950 to the other State and not otherwise
and in that regard the petitioner therein who migrated in the year
1998 from the State of Rajasthan to State of M.P. after her
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VIJAY TRIPATHI
Signing time: 4/30/2026
10:37:16 AM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:13879
8 WP-7568-2018
marriage was held not to be entitled to contest the election on the
basis of caste certificate issued by the competent authority of State
of Rajasthan. [Smt.Preeti Gehlod Vs. M.P. State Election
Commission and others, (passed in Civil Revision No.574 of
2019, decided on 26.3.2025)].
11. Castes or groups are specified in relation to a given State or
Union Territory, which obviously means that such caste would
include caste belonging to an OBC group in relation to that State
or Union Territory for which it is specified and the matters that are
to be taken into consideration for specifying a particular caste in a
particular group belonging to OBCs would depend on the nature
and extent of disadvantages and social hardships suffered by that
caste or group in that State and they may not be so in another State
to which a person belongs thereto goes by migration and it was
also argued that it may also be that a caste belonging to 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 data for specification may also be entirely
different. Thus, merely because a given caste is specified in one
State as belonging to OBCs does not necessarily mean that if there
be another group belonging to the same nomenclature in other
State, a person belonging to that group is entitled to the rights,
privileges and benefits admissible to the persons of that caste.
[M.C.D.Vs. Veena and others, reported in (2001) 6 SCC 571]
12. The Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Smt. Preeti
Gehlod (supra) while referring to the decision of the Apex Court
in the matter of Action Committee (supra) wherein it was held that
the benefit of caste would be available to them who were migrated
before 1950 to the other State has held that since the petitioner
therein migrated in the year 1998 from the State of Rajasthan to
Madhya Pradesh after her marriage, therefore, she is not entitled to
contest the election on the basis of a caste certificate issued by the
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VIJAY TRIPATHI
Signing time: 4/30/2026
10:37:16 AM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:13879
9 WP-7568-2018
Competent Authority of the State of Rajasthan.
13. In the case herein the petitioner is possessing the caste
certificate issued by the State of U.P. and no caste certificate from
the State of M.P. has been issued in her favour. Thus, when that is
the case, the benefit of caste certificate issued by the State of U.P.
in the light of the aforesaid judgments cannot be accepted in the
State of M.P. and on its basis the benefit of reservation cannot be
extended to the petitioner. The Apex Court in the case of M.C.D.
vs. Veena and others (supra) in para 6 has held as under:
“Castes or groups are specified in relation to a given State or
Union Territory, which obviously means that such caste
would include caste belonging to an OBC group in relation
to that State or Union Territory for which it is specified. The
matters that are to be taken into consideration for specifying
a particular caste in a particular group belonging to OBCs
would depend on the nature and extent of disadvantages and
social hardships suffered by that caste or group in that State.
However, it may not be so in another State to which a person
belongs thereto goes by migration. It may also be that a caste
belonging to the same nomenclature is specified in two States
but the considerations on the basis of which they been
specified may be totally different. So the degree of
disadvantages of various elements which constitute the data
for specification may also be entirely different. Thus, merely
because a given caste is specified in one State as belonging
to OBCs does not necessarily mean that if there be another
group belonging to the same nomenclature in other State and
a person belonging to that group is entitled to the rights,
privileges and benefits admissible to the members of that
caste. These aspects have to be borne in mind in interpreting
the provisions of the Constitution with reference to
application of reservation to OBCs.”
14. In light of the aforesaid discussion, this Court finds that
petitioner who prior to migration was domicile of State of U.P.
and was possessing a caste certificate issued by the State of U.P.
therefore, after her migration (due to marriage) to the State of
M.P. cannot avail the benefit of reservation on the basis of caste
certificate issued by the State of U.P.”
8. Even otherwise, the writ petition is not maintainable against a
remand order, as the Commissioner has directed consideration of the inter se
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VIJAY TRIPATHI
Signing time: 4/30/2026
10:37:16 AM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:13879
10 WP-7568-2018
merit of the applicant/petitioner as well as the respondents, and has further
directed that appointment to the post of Anganwadi Worker be made on the
basis of merit.
9. In view of the aforesaid, respondent No. 4 is directed to take a
decision in accordance with the order dated 04.01.2018, after affording an
opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner, respondent No. 5, and all
other candidates who had applied for the post of Anganwadi Worker.
Respondent No. 4 shall also determine the inter se merit in light of the
observations made herein, and while doing so, shall treat the petitioner as not
entitled to the benefit of the SC category in the State of Madhya Pradesh.
10. The respondent No.4 is directed to comply the aforesaid direction
within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of
this order and passed the reasoned and speaking order after giving personal
opportunity of being heard the petitioner as well as respondent No.5 and
other candidates.
11. With the aforesaid, present petition is disposed of.
(ANAND SINGH BAHRAWAT)
JUDGE
*VJ*
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VIJAY TRIPATHI
Signing time: 4/30/2026
10:37:16 AM
[ad_1]
Source link
