Punjab and Haryana High Court Upholds State-Specific Reservation Rules
Migrant Backward Class Petitioner's Claim for Reservation in Punjab Dismissed
In a significant judgment, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has dismissed a petition filed by Vinay Sahotra seeking reservation benefits under the Backward Class (BC) category in the state of Punjab. The court held that reservation benefits are state-specific and cannot be claimed by migrants in states other than their state of origin.
The petitioner, Vinay Sahotra, had applied for recruitment to the post of Assistant Engineer/OT (Electrical) with the Punjab State Power Corporation Limited (PSPCL). Despite scoring above the cutoff marks for the BC category in the Graduate Aptitude Test in Engineering (GATE), Sahotra's application was rejected on grounds that his family had migrated from Himachal Pradesh to Punjab, making him ineligible for BC reservation benefits in Punjab.
Justice Harpreet Singh Brar, presiding over the case, emphasized that the determination of a person's eligibility for reservation benefits depends on the permanent abode of their parents at the time of the notification recognizing the caste as a Backward Class. Since Sahotra's grandfather was originally from Tehsil Una, which became part of Himachal Pradesh post-1966 reorganization, the court concluded that the petitioner could only claim reservation benefits in Himachal Pradesh.
The judgment reiterated the constitutional philosophy that reservation benefits are rooted in the geographical and historical context of social disadvantage. The court cited previous Supreme Court judgments to support its decision, emphasizing that social conditions vary from state to state, and blanket reservation across states would violate the principle of equitable distribution of resources.
This ruling holds significant implications for the interpretation of Articles 16(4) and 342A of the Constitution of India, underscoring that affirmative action must be contingent on state-specific social conditions rather than a generalized national framework.
The court's decision reinforces the understanding that individuals migrating to another state cannot carry forward their reservation benefits, preserving the integrity of state-specific affirmative action policies.
Bottom Line:
A person belonging to a Backward Class (BC) category cannot claim reservation benefits in a state where their family migrated post the issuance of notification recognizing the caste as Backward Class - Benefits of reservation are state-specific, based on geographical and historical context.
Statutory provision(s): Articles 16(4), 342A, 341, 342 of the Constitution of India
