Reservation Under Backward Class Category Can Be Claimed Only In State of Origin, Not State Of Birth Or Residence: Punjab & Haryana High Court
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has held that reservation benefits under the Backward Class (BC) category can only be claimed in the State of origin, not in the State of birth or subsequent residence.
The development was made while dismissing a petition by a candidate seeking recruitment in Punjab State Power Corporation Limited (PSPCL) under the BC quota, stating that he can claim reservation in Himachal Pradesh which was his permanent adobe at the the time of notification and not in Punjab.
Justice Harpreet Singh Brar explained that, "the issue of portability of caste or community based reservations arises when domicile is confused with ethnicity. The state of origin of a person is not ascertained with respect the place of his birth but has to be defined in terms of permanent abode of his parents at the time of issuance of the relevant notification. The constitutional philosophy acknowledges that the idea of 'backwardness' is contextual and territorial. While an individual can migrate to another area, however, the socio- economic disadvantages faced by a community residing in a particular geographical area historically do not migrate with him."
Thus, the Court observed that, benefits of reservation are permanently rooted in one's ethnicity that denotes a shared culture and history. Allowing an approach where reservation is made portable across states would be violative of the principle of equitable distribution of resources as envisaged by the Constitution of India as it would amount to denial of benefits to those disadvantaged groups that they were orignially intended for.
Referring to clarification issued by the Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment in 2002, the Court found that, "in order to ascertain eligibility of an applicant for a caste-based certificate, the place of permanent abode of their father at the time of the notification is to be looked at."
In the present case, the Court noted while the grandfather of the petitioner was a resident to the erstwhile State of Punjab, his father resided in the State of Himachal Pradesh since its creation in the year 1966. Admittedly, he only moved to the State of Punjab in the year 1999, clearly connoting that he does not belong to this State originally.
"Further, both the grandfather and father of the petitioner were employees of the Central Government, however, it remains unclear whether they availed benefits of reservation under the BC category in respect of the State of Himachal Pradesh," it added.
Recognizing Backwardness: Affirmative Action Must Be Rooted in Context, Not Identity Alone
The Court said that, notifying a community as 'backward' would inherently be contingent on their history in a specific geographical area. Such determination is not made merely on the abstract idea of the identity of a community but honours its struggles by acknowledging the demonstrable evidence of disadvantage.
"It is not necessary that the same community faces identical hindrances all across the nation, as such, it would be unwise to understand this facet of the constitution as an attempt to provide blanket reservation," the bench said.
The judge said, the very spirit behind the concept of affirmative action would be defeated if the same is done in a fashion that devoid of context and nuance.
Referring to the revenue records which provide that the family's ancestral property in Una, It reiterated that migration after issuance of the Presidential Notification does not alter the State of origin.
“Both the original migrants as well as their progeny will be regarded as migrants and not be provided with benefits of reservation in the State of immigration,” it said.
In the light of the above, the Court held that the petitioner can only claim the reservation for persons belonging to the BC category in the State of Himachal Pradesh, which was the permanent abode of the father of the petitioner since its creation in the year 1966.
Mr. Abhishek Thakur, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Akash Vashisth, Advocate for the respondents-PSPCL.
Title: Vinay Sahotra v. The Punjab State Power Corporation Limited and others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (PH) 406