IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA Civil Writ Petiton No.4920 of 2009. Date of decision: 20.05.2010. Meenakshi Rehal ….Petitioner Versus State of H.P. & Others ….Respondents Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kurian Joseph, Chief Justice. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dev Darshan Sud, Judge. Whether approved for reporting ?1 For the Petitioner: Mr.Ajay Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr.R.K. Sharma, Senior Additional Advocate General . Justice Kurian Joseph,C.J.(Oral): The petitioner approached this Court since she was not permitted to participate in the selection process for the appointment of TGT(Arts). The petitioner claims for the status of Scheduled Caste since her caste ‘Lohar’ is Scheduled Caste in State of Himachal Pradesh. But the petitioner is born and brought up in Punjab where ‘Lohar’ caste is only treated as Backward. Her parents belong to the said backward class only. A person belonging to the backward class in one State, cannot get the advantage as Scheduled Caste by shifting the domicile to another State where that caste is included in the category of Scheduled Castes. Caste status is acquired by birth and not by domicile or matrimony. 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgement? 2 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he had already been issued a Scheduled Caste Certificate. Apparently, the State has not taken into consideration the crucially relevant factor referred to above. Therefore, we set aside Annexure P-3, certificate issued by the Executive Magistrate, Una. But that does not mean that she should be treated as belonging to forward class. The social disadvantages are still there on account of her caste status. Since the petitioner is a member of the backward community in Punjab by birth, she shall be entitled to the benefits that are available to the backward community, despite the fact that the same community is treated as Scheduled Caste in the State of Himachal Pradesh. 3. As far as the present petitioner is concerned, we find that the interview in which she participated provisionally pursuant to the interim order of this Court, the petitioner got only 111 marks in place of the required 117 marks. Therefore, as far as the selection is concerned, the petitioner is not entitled for any relief. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of so also the pending application(s). (Justice Kurian Joseph), Chief Justice. (Dev Darshan Sud), Judge. May 20, 2010. (aks/r)