High Court clarifies BC quota valid only in state of origin, not birth

In a significant ruling on the question of portability of caste-based reservations, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has held that reservation benefits under the Backward Class (BC) category can only be claimed in the State of origin, not in the State of birth or subsequent residence.

The court dismissed a petition by a candidate seeking recruitment in Punjab State Power Corporation Limited (PSPCL) under the BC quota, ruling that his entitlement to reservation lay in Himachal Pradesh and not in Punjab.

Justice Harpreet Singh Brar, while dismissing the plea, categorically observed: “The petitioner can only claim the reservation for persons belonging to the BC category in the State of Himachal Pradesh, which was the permanent abode of the father of the petitioner since its creation in the year 1966.”

Background of the case

The petitioner, who had qualified the GATE examination with 30 out of 100 marks against the BC cut-off of 22.5, applied for the post of Assistant Engineer/OT (Electrical) in PSPCL under the BC category. At the stage of document verification, however, objections were raised to his claim of belonging to Punjab’s BC category, as he had furnished a self-declaration stating he was a permanent resident of Punjab since birth in 2000.

Court’s analysis of ancestry and migration

The Bench traced the petitioner’s family history to hold that his claim to Punjab’s BC quota was untenable. It noted that his grandfather was originally a resident of Gondpur Banehra village, then part of Hoshiarpur district in the composite State of Punjab. But following the 1966 reorganisation, the village became part of District Una in Himachal Pradesh.

The judgment recorded: “The father of the petitioner obtained a job with the Bureau of Immigration and moved to District Amritsar, State of Punjab in the year 1991… Subsequently, the petitioner was born in the year 2000 in District Amritsar itself.”

Government clarification relied upon

Relying on a clarification issued by the Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment in 2002, the court held that the place of permanent abode of the father at the time of the Presidential Notification had to be determinative of the caste-based reservation entitlement.

“While the grandfather of the petitioner was a resident of the erstwhile State of Punjab, his father resided in the State of Himachal Pradesh since its creation in the year 1966. Admittedly, he only moved to the State of Punjab in the year 1999, clearly connoting that he does not belong to this State originally,” the court observed.

The Bench warned that allowing such claims would distort the constitutional scheme of equitable benefits: “Providing recruitment to the petitioner would also mean denying the same to a better suited person belonging to the BC category, in relation to the State of Punjab.”

On portability of reservations

The High Court underscored that caste and community-based reservations were not portable across States. “The state of origin of a person is not ascertained with respect to the place of his birth but has to be defined in terms of permanent abode of his parents at the time of issuance of the relevant notification,” Justice Brar held.

Expounding the constitutional philosophy, the court stated: “The idea of ‘backwardness’ is contextual and territorial. While an individual can migrate to another area, however, the socio-economic disadvantages faced by a community residing in a particular geographical area historically do not migrate with him.”

The Bench cautioned that portability would be antithetical to equity: “Allowing an approach where reservation is made portable across States would be violative of the principle of equitable distribution of resources as envisaged by the Constitution of India as it would amount to denial of benefits to those disadvantaged groups that they were originally intended for.”

Finding on petitioner’s documents

The court also took note of revenue records showing the family’s ancestral property in Una. It reiterated that migration after issuance of the Presidential Notification does not alter the State of origin: “Both the original migrants as well as their progeny will be regarded as migrants and not be provided with benefits of reservation in the State of immigration.”

The Bench concluded: “Since the year 1966, the erstwhile composite State of Punjab ceased to exist and Tehsil Una, the area of permanent abode of the forefathers of the petitioner, was placed under the State of Himachal Pradesh. As such, the connection between the geographical area of origin of the identity of the family of the petitioner i.e. Una cannot be severed on account of their subsequent move to the present State of Punjab in the year 1999.”

The petitioner was entitled to BC benefits only in Himachal Pradesh, the High Court dismissed the petition seeking relief under Punjab’s BC category.