CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.13672 OF 2010 (O&M) :{ 1 }: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH DATE OF DECISION: DECEMBER 24 ,2010 Karishma .....Petitioner VERSUS State of Punjab and another ....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? PRESENT: Mr. Anil Chawla, Advocate, for the petitioner. Ms. Monika Chhibber Sharma, DAG, Punjab, for the State. Mr. K. S. Dadwal, Advocate, for respondent No.2. **** RANJIT SINGH, J. The petitioner is a candidate seeking admission to B>D.S. Course. The prospectus for PMET-10 examination was issued in May 2010. The petitioner, who is born in State of Himachal Pradesh and belongs to Bodh Tribe, avers that his tribe is recognized as a Scheduled Tribe under the Constitution (Scheduled Tribe) Order, 1950 as amended by the Scheduled Caste and Tribe (Modification) Order, 1956. Reference is made to the appointment of father of the petitioner in Food Corporation of India, for which reason the CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.13672 OF 2010 (O&M) :{ 2 }: petitioner came to study in the State of Punjab, as his father was posted at Amritsar. The petitioner accordingly has studied from 4th Class onwards upto Matric with the Punjab School Education Board and so also for 10+2 Class. The petitioner accordingly applied for admission/entrance in the B.D.S. Course in the category of scheduled tribe. Her result was declared and the petitioner had obtained 332 marks and was given rank No.3953. The petitioner ranked 4 in the reserved category of scheduled tribe but during the counselling, the petitioner could not be considered in this category as there was no seat reserved for scheduled tribe. She accordingly has filed this writ petition, seeking a direction for being considered in the reserved category of scheduled tribe. The respondents have filed reply. It is stated that the petitioner can not be considered in the reserved category of scheduled tribe as her `Bodh Tribe' is not considered as scheduled tribe in Punjab. It is also pointed out that as per the conditions mentioned in the prospectus, the candidate must be bonafide resident of Punjab whereas in the certificate, it is mentioned that the petitioner is resident of State of Himachal Pradesh. Having considered the claim of the petitioner, she was not considered eligible for appointment in the reserved category on this ground only. Counsel for the respondents has also placed reliance on U.P.Public Service Commission, Allahabad Vs. Sanjay Kumar Singh, AIR 2003 Supreme Court 3626, where somewhat similar issue arose before the Supreme Court and it has been held that benefit of reservation as scheduled tribes to the candidate belonging CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.13672 OF 2010 (O&M) :{ 3 }: to a tribe notified as scheduled tribe in the State of Nagaland is not entitled to a candidate, who had migrated to State of U.P. Such a candidate can not claim benefit of reservation in the State of U.P., if such tribe is not notified as scheduled tribe in the said State. The ratio of this judgment would clearly be attracted to the facts of the present case. In view of the same, there is no merit in the writ petition and the same is accordingly dismissed. December 24,2010 (RANJIT SINGH ) khurmi JUDGE