Case at a Glance
A woman recognised as Scheduled Tribe in Gujarat married a man of the same caste living in Rajasthan, moved there and applied for the post of Nursing Officer as an ST candidate. The State rejected her ST claim and considered her in the General Category, and a Single Judge upheld that decision. A Division Bench of the Rajasthan High Court agreed: relying on Marri Chandra Shekhar Rao v. Dean, G.S. Medical College, (1990) 05 SC CK 0015 and Action Committee on Issue of Caste Certificate to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes in the State of Maharashtra v. Union of India, (1994) 07 SC CK 0080, it held that a candidate who is ST in another State, applying under an advertisement which says such candidates will be treated as General, is not entitled to ST reservation in Rajasthan. The special appeal was dismissed.
The appellant belongs to a caste recognised as a Scheduled Tribe in the State of Gujarat. After marrying a man of the same caste who lives in Rajasthan, she began living in Rajasthan and applied for appointment as a Nursing Officer in the Medical and Health Department, claiming reservation as an ST candidate. During the recruitment process the State rejected her ST claim and considered her candidature in the General Category.
Her writ petition (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 17547 of 2025) was dismissed by a Single Judge on 23 September 2025, relying on Ranjana Kumari v. State of Uttarakhand. In the special appeal she argued that her caste is notified as ST both in Gujarat and in Rajasthan, so she should be treated as ST. The State, through the Additional Advocate General, relied on Marri Chandra Shekhar Rao and Action Committee, and pointed out that the advertisement itself said reserved-category candidates from other States would be considered in the General Category.
The Key Question Before the Court
Can a woman who is a Scheduled Tribe member in Gujarat, and who moves to Rajasthan after marriage, claim ST reservation in a Rajasthan government recruitment merely because her caste is also notified as ST in Rajasthan?
Why Reservation Status Is Tied to the State of Origin
The Bench quoted Marri Chandra Shekhar Rao v. Dean, G.S. Medical College, where the Supreme Court held that constitutional provisions on Scheduled Castes and Tribes must be read “broadly and harmoniously”, and that a member of a Scheduled Tribe who migrates to another State does not carry special rights from the original State into the new one. Scheduled status is declared under Articles 341 and 342 in relation to a particular State, because the disadvantage being addressed is assessed with reference to conditions in that State.
The Court also relied on Action Committee on Issue of Caste Certificate to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes in the State of Maharashtra v. Union of India, which explains that the specification of a caste or tribe depends on local conditions, so the mere fact that a caste is specified in State A does not automatically give its members rights in State B. Applying these rulings, and noting the specific condition in the advertisement, the Division Bench agreed with the Single Judge that the appellant was “automatically” disentitled to ST reservation, even though her tribe carries the same name in both States.
What the Court Actually Held
- A candidate who belongs to the ST category in a State other than Rajasthan cannot claim ST reservation in Rajasthan merely because the same caste is notified there too.
- Where the advertisement says such candidates will be considered in the General Category, the candidate is automatically disentitled to ST reservation.
- Marriage to a man of the same caste living in Rajasthan, and residence in Rajasthan, do not change this position.
- The Single Judge’s order was upheld and the special appeal was dismissed.
Why This Judgment Matters
- Many women migrate on marriage; the ruling makes clear that reserved status for public employment is linked to the State where it was originally recognised.
- It applies settled Supreme Court law (Marri Chandra Shekhar Rao, Action Committee) to State recruitment and reads it together with the advertisement conditions.
- Candidates moving between States must plan their applications on the footing that they will be treated as General outside their home State.
What Should Advocates Take Away From the Judgment?
For Candidates
- If you hold an SC/ST certificate from another State, expect to be treated as General in Rajasthan recruitment, even if your caste has the same name there.
- Read the advertisement’s clause on migrant reserved candidates before applying in a reserved category.
For Counsel
- A claim that the caste is notified in both States will not succeed against Marri Chandra Shekhar Rao and Action Committee.
- Check whether the advertisement contains an express condition; the Bench treated it as a decisive factor.
Key Takeaways
- SC/ST status for reservation is State-specific.
- Migration, including by marriage, does not transfer reservation benefits to the new State.
- Same caste name in two State lists is not enough.
- Advertisement conditions treating out-of-State reserved candidates as General were applied.
Frequently Asked Questions
Can a woman who is ST in Gujarat get ST reservation in Rajasthan after marriage?
Not according to this ruling. The Rajasthan High Court held that she would be treated as General in Rajasthan recruitment, following Supreme Court precedent that reserved status does not travel with migration.
Does it matter that the caste is also ST in Rajasthan?
No. The Court relied on Action Committee, which says a caste specified in one State does not automatically get rights in another, because specification depends on local conditions.
Which post was involved?
The appellant had applied for the post of Nursing Officer in the Rajasthan Medical and Health Department.
Conclusion
The Division Bench applied settled law: reservation under Articles 341 and 342 is tied to the State in which the community is notified, and a person who migrates, whether for work or marriage, cannot carry that status into another State’s recruitment, especially when the advertisement says so in terms.
Practical takeaway: Out-of-State SC/ST candidates should apply in the General Category in Rajasthan, or be prepared to be shifted to it; a challenge based only on the same caste name in both State lists is unlikely to succeed.
For more judgments, legal opinions and case analysis, visit courtkutchehry.com