IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION NO.12 OF 2009 WITH REVIEW PETITION (ST) NO.734 OF 2009 IN WRIT PETITION NO.5084 OF 2004 Priyanka Omprakash Panwar )..Petitioner V/s. The State of Maharashtra & Ors. )..Respondents ---- Mr.A.V.Chatuphale for the petitioner. None for the respondents. ---- Coram : F.I.Rebello & R.S.Mohite,JJ Date : 28.01.2009. PC 1. The petitioner herein had filed a petition before this Court challenging the decision of the Caste Scrutiny Committee. One of the reasons given by the Committee was the review applicant was a migrant from the State of Rajasthan (wrongly recorded as State of Madhya Pradesh in the judgment). The petitioner thereafter against the said judgment, moved by special leave to appeal which was withdrawn upon the statement made by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that he will move this Court. 2. It is the case of the petitioner that the caste certificate could have been issued by the competent : 2 : authority in the state and when the caste certificate was issued, considering the judgment in Madhuri Patil V/s. Additional Commissioner, Tribal Development reported in 1994(6) SCC 241, the committee had to comply with the directions issued by the Supreme Court at serial no.5 of paragraph-13. 3. Firstly, the law is now settled in the case of Marri Chandra Shekhar Rao V/s. Dean, Seth G.S.Medical College, reported in (1990) 3 SCC 130 as also in the judgment in the case of Action Committee on issue of Caste Certificate to SCs and STs in the State of Maharashtra V/s. Union of India reported in (1994) 5SCC 244 that migrant from another state is not entitled for the benefits of reservation in the state of migration and would be entitled to benefit of reservation as Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe in the state of migration. Merely because a caste or tribe with the same nominclature may be notified as Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe in two states, that would not make a person so eligible in the state of migration. The petitioner would be entitled for reservation in the state of Rajasthan. In so far as Maharashtra is concerned, the petitioner has to compete with the other open category candidates. 4. The Government of India have issued Circulars to avoid hardship to a person who may move from one : 3 : state to another, in the matter of issuance of caste certificate. It is then open to the competent authority to issue a caste certificate where the person ordinarily resides. This however, does not mean that such a person based on the certificate is entitled for reservation in the state of migration. 5. Considering the above, in our opinion, there is no merit in the review petition. Accordingly, the application for condonation of delay and also review petition are dismissed. (R.S.Mohite,J) (F.I.Rebello,J)