IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 4668 OF 2009 Gayatri D/o. Rameshkumar Rao .. Petitioner. vs. The Principal, College & Engineering for Women & ors. .. Respondents. Mr. Santosh Parad for the Petitioner. Mr. C.R. Sonawane, A.G.P. for Respondent State. CORAM: J.N. PATEL, & Smt. MRIDULA BHATKAR, JJ. DATE : 7TH MAY, 2009. P.C. . Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. The petitioner claims that she belongs to caste Hindu- Dhusia (Chamar) which is recognised as Scheduled Caste in Uttar Pradesh State and its synonymous caste is ‘Chamar’ which is recognised as Scheduled Caste in Maharashtra State. It is the case of the petitioner that she was born and brought up in Maharashtra and that her school record clearly show that the petitioner belongs to Hindu-Dhusia (Chamar caste). 3. The petitioner has filed this petition seeking directions against respondent nos. 1 and 2 to grant her admission to appear for 2nd semester examination of 3rd Year Engineering Course scheduled to be held in the month of May/June 2009 on the basis that she has been prosecuting her studies in College of Engineering, Pune where she got admission against the seat reserved for Scheduled Caste candidate. It appears that the caste certificate of the petitioner was referred to respondent no. 3 Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee which has communicated to the petitioner by its letter dated 21.3.2009 annexed to the petition as Exhibit “E” that her case for scrutiny of caste cannot be considered as she is a migrant as per the Government Circular No. CBC 1696/Pra.Kra.64/Mavak 5 dated 21.8.1996 wherein it has been clarified that the person who is not ordinarily residing in the State of Maharashtra, his caste claim and caste certificate should not be examined by the Caste Verification Committee and as the petitioner’s caste certificate which is issued by the Deputy Collector, CFC, Pune, District Pune vide No. CASTE/SC/ 040405271/2004, dated 17.6.2004 mentions that she belongs to caste Dhusia, does not entitle for the benefits available to caste “Chamar” which is recognised in the State of Maharashtra as Scheduled Caste. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner’s parents though migrated to the State of Maharashtra, now they are domiciled in the State of Maharashtra and, therefore, the Caste Scrutiny Committee having failed to examine the caste claim of the petitioner on the ground that she is a migrant is not correct and, therefore, she should be allowed to prosecute her studies by permitting her to appear for the 2nd semester examination of 3rd Year Engineering Course scheduled to be held in the month of May/June 2009. 4. In Marri Chandra Shekhar Rao vs. Dean, Seth G.S. Medical College and others, reported in (1990) 3 SCC 130, the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court has held that preventing a Scheduled tribe candidate of Andhra Pradesh from getting a medical seat in Maharashtra under the Scheduled Tribe quota would not be violative of Article 14 because a Scheduled Tribe candidate of Andhra Pradesh will be entitled to all the benefits in medical colleges of the State of Maharashtra. It is also not possible to accept the submission that uner Articles 14, 19(1)(d), (e) and (f), if a parent wishes to keep his child with him, the opposite view would necessarily mean that he must remain confined to his home State, disregarding all suitable job opportunities commensurate with his education, experience and talent. It further held that these are not additional protection, i.e., he can only enjoy the protection of the Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe but he cannot enjoy the protection of non- Scheduled Tribes or Castes in addition to the existing fundamental rights. The Supreme Court held that a candidate recognised as a member of ST/SC in his original State on his migration to another State, is not entitled to get benefit of reservation of seats. It further held that it is however for the legislature to make appropriate legislation to effectively deal with the situation where migration is involuntary such as due to transfer of place of employment or profession of the candidate’s parent. This has been reiterated by the Supreme Court in the decision rendered in another Full Bench in the case of Action Committee on Issue of Caste Certificate to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes in the State of Maharashtra and Another, versus Union of India and Another, reported in (1994) 5 SCC 244, wherein the Supreme Court has held as under :- “ On a plain reading of clause (1) of Articles 341 and 342 it is manifest that the power of the President is limited to specifying the castes or tribes which shall, for the purposes of the Constitution, be deemed to be Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes in relation to State or a Union Territory, as the case may be. Once a notification is issued under clause (1) of Articles 341 and 342 of the Constitution, Parliament can by law include in or exclude from the list of Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes, specified in the notification, any caste or tribe but save for that limited purpose the notification issued under clause (1), shall not be varied by any subsequent notification. The castes or tribes have to be specified in relation to a given Stte or Union Territory. That means a given caste or tribe can be a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe in relation to the State or Union Territory for which it is specified. Considerations for specifying a particular caste or tribe or class for inclusion in the list of Scheduled Castes/Scheduled 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 consideration 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.” 5. In the case of the petitioner it is not in dispute that the caste certificate of the petitioner annexed to the petition as Exhibit “A” clearly shows that the father of the petitioner was issued a caste certificate by the Additional District Magistrate, Meerut on 11.3.1964 wherein it has been certified that he belongs to “Dhusia” community which is recognised as Scheduled Caste under the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes Order (Amendment) Act 1956. The said certificate further clarifies that he and/or his family ordinarily resides in the Meerut District/Division of the Uttar Pradesh State. Thus, it leaves no doubt in one’s mind that the petitioner is a migrant though she has prosecuted her studies in the State of Maharashtra and passed her SSC examination from Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and Higher Secondary Education, Pune. There is another aspect which requires consideration i.e., in the list of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes notified in the State of Uttar Pradesh at Sr. No. 24 Chamar, Dhusia, Jhusia, Jatava are shown as belonging to Scheduled Caste whereas in Maharashtra at Sr. No. 11 “Chamar” is mentioned but “Dhusia” does not figure in the said list of Scheduled Caste. Therefore, we find that the Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee was justified in informing the petitioner that her caste certificate cannot be verified for the purpose of validating the same as she is a migrant i.e., ordinarily resident of Meerut in Uttar Pradesh. 6. We, therefore, dismiss the petition in limine. (J.N. Patel, J.) (Smt. Mridula Bhatkar, J.)