Civil Writ Petition No.16026 of 2009 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH -.- Civil Writ Petition No.16026 of 2009 Date of decision:- 15.3.2010 Prem Kumar .... Petitioner Versus Kurukshetra University Kurukshetra & Anr. .... Respondents. CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PERMOD KOHLI Present:- Mr. Sanjiv Gupta, Advocate, for the petitioner. Permod Kohli, J. A short controversy involved in the present writ petition is whether the petitioner, who belongs to State of Himachal Pardesh, is entitled to the benefit of reservation in the State of Haryana, even if the cast to which he belongs also notified as one of the reserve category in the State of Haryana. The petitioner applied for M.Tech, Microelectronics & VLSI Design Course in the respondent-University, which is admittedly located in the State of Haryana. The petitioner claimed the fee as applicable to the reserve category (Scheduled Caste) in the State of Haryana. In the prospectus issued by the University various casts notified as Scheduled Caste in the State of Haryana have been specified in appendix thereto. “Chanal” is one of the caste notified as reserve category for Scheduled Caste in the aforesaid appendix. The petitioner belongs to this caste, but he is resident of State of Himachal Pardesh. On account of the fact that this caste has been notified as reserve category in the State of Haryana as well Civil Writ Petition No.16026 of 2009 -2- and concessional fee is payable by the candidates belonging to the reserve categories, the petitioner claims the concessional fee from the University. The petitioner made representations Annexure P-4 and P-5. In these representations, the petitioner projected his grievance regarding the amount of fee demanded by the University. The petitioner has deposited Rs.12,850/- and Rs.12,826/- for the first and second Semesters, respectively. Even he has deposited Rs.11051/- for the third Semester and the petitioner has been asked to deposit a sum of Rs.25,000/- which is payable by the General Category candidates. The petitioner, accordingly, claimed concessional fee as is payable by the Scheduled Castes (reserve category candidates). To support his contention the petitioner has replied uipon earlier complaint in which, while seeking admission in M.SC (Electronics) in the year 2004-05, the petitioner claimed benefit of the reserve category which was denied to him and thus petitioner filed CWP No. 10963 of 2004 in this Court wherein an interim order was passed by a Division Bench of this Court on 6.8.2004 granting provisional admission to the petitioner and he was allowed to take examination of the Semesters. On the basis of various interim directions the petitioner completed the Course. On completion of the Court, writ petition came to be withdrawn as infructuous. With intent to seek the benefit of concessional fee while taking admission to M.Tech Microelectronics & VLSI Design Course, the petitioner approached the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kurukshetra by filing a complaint alleging charging of higher fee. Vide interim order dated 16.1.2008, the Tribunal directed the University to charge the fee payable by Civil Writ Petition No.16026 of 2009 -3- Scheduled Caste Category provisionally and issue him a Roll Number to appear in examination. It seems that University disputed the jurisdiction of consumer forum, and the claim of the petitioner was also opposed on the basis of the reservation policy of the State. On filing the written statement by the University, the petitioner withdrew the complaint from the consumer forum. In the reply filed by the University, the claim of the petitioner is primarily opposed on the ground that he belongs to State of Himachal Pardesh and is not entitled to the benefit of the reservation in the State of Haryana. Respondent- University has also sought clarification from the State Government vide its letter dated 11.4.2000. In response to the aforesaid letter Government of Haryana has clarified that the benefit of reservation is to be given only to the bona fide residents of Haryana. On the basis of the undisputed facts, the petitioner is claiming benefit of reservation in the State of Haryana, whereas he is permanent and bona fide resident of Himachal Pardesh. This issued is no more res-intergra. Hon'ble Supreme Court in M.C.D Vs. Veena and others, AIR 2001, S.C 2749, in paragraph – 6 has observed as under:- "casts or groups are specified in relation to a given State or Union Territory, which obviously means that such caste would include caste belonging to an OBC group in relation to that State or Union Territory for which it is specified. The matters that are to be taken into consideration for specifying a particular caste in a particular group belonging to OBCs would depend on the nature and extent of disadvantages Civil Writ Petition No.16026 of 2009 -4- and social hardships suffered by that caste or group in that State. However, it may not be so in another State to which a person belongs thereto goes by migration. It may also be that a caste belonging to 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 the degree of disadvantages of vaious elements which constitute the data for specification may also be entirely different. Thus, merely because a given caste is specified in one State as belonging to OBCs does not necessarily mean that if there be another group belonging to the same nomenclature in other tate and a person belonging to that group is entitled to the rights, privileges and benefits admissible to the members of that caste. These aspects have to be borne in mind in interpreting the provisions of the Constitution with reference to application of reservation to OBCs." It has categorically been ruled out that the benefit of reservation is available only to the bona fide residents of the State. Any reservation policy applies only to the residents of that State and cannot be extended to the residents of other States to confirm any benefit of reservation. I find no merit in this petition which is accordingly dismissed. March 15 , 2010. (Permod Kohli) tripti Judge