Backward Class Status is Not a Migratory Right – Punjab & Haryana High Court Holds Reservation Cannot Be Claimed in Migrated State

“Socioeconomic Disadvantage is Geographically Rooted – Benefits of Reservation Are Not Portable Across States” - In a significant verdict delivered on 1st October 2025, the Punjab and Haryana High Court ruled that a candidate belonging to a Backward Class (BC) in one state cannot claim reservation benefits in another state solely on the basis of migration or current residence. The Court upheld the constitutional and legal principle that the social and educational backwardness of a community is inherently linked to the region in which such disadvantage exists, and dismissed the writ petition seeking appointment under BC quota in Punjab.

Justice Harpreet Singh Brar held that "reservations under Articles 15(4) and 16(4) are state-specific in character, and a person cannot claim the benefit of reservation merely because a caste is recognised as backward in more than one state."

The petitioner had challenged the order dated 19.05.2025, passed by the Deputy Secretary, PSPCL, rejecting his claim for BC reservation in Punjab, despite his merit position. However, the Court found no infirmity in the rejection, citing a consistent line of constitutional jurisprudence.

“A Person May Migrate, But Backwardness Does Not” – High Court Rejects Domicile-Based Claim in Absence of State-Origin Status

The petitioner, Inderjeet Singh, had applied for the post of Assistant Engineer/OT (Electrical) under the BC category in response to PSPCL's advertisement dated 27.11.2024. He stood first in the BC category based on his GATE 2024 score, and submitted all required documents including Backward Class and Domicile Certificates.

However, his claim was rejected on the ground that although he was born and raised in Amritsar, Punjab, his father had migrated to Punjab only in 1999 from Tehsil Una, which became part of Himachal Pradesh in 1966 post-reorganisation. Thus, the authorities treated the petitioner as a migrant BC, not eligible for Punjab’s reserved quota.

The Court found that this rejection was in accordance with law, observing:

“The issue of portability of caste or community-based reservations arises when domicile is confused with ethnicity... While a person may move, the historical social disadvantage does not migrate with him.”

“Migrant BCs Cannot Claim State-Specific Reservation – Place of Parental Origin at Time of Notification Is Crucial”

In dissecting the constitutional and administrative framework, the Court relied on multiple Government of India clarifications and leading Supreme Court decisions, particularly:

• Marri Chandra Shekhar Rao v. Dean, Seth G.S. Medical College

• MCD v. Veena

• Bir Singh v. Delhi Jal Board

• Pankaj Kumar v. UOI, where portability was allowed in a limited context due to a reorganisation statute

Citing these, the Court held: “The State of origin is not determined by the place of birth, but by the permanent abode of the candidate’s parents at the time of issuance of the relevant reservation notification. In the present case, the petitioner’s father resided in what became Himachal Pradesh since 1966, and only migrated to Punjab in 1999.”

The Court further explained that even the same caste recognised in different states may not suffer identical disadvantages, hence, the social justice objective of reservation is territorial. Justice Brar remarked:

“Providing reservation to the petitioner in Punjab would effectively mean denying the same opportunity to a candidate who has faced systemic deprivation in Punjab.”

“Article 342A and Affirmative Action Must Be Interpreted in a Contextual and Territorial Framework” – High Court Cautions Against Blanket Application of Reservation

Referring to Article 342A of the Constitution, which empowers the President to notify socially and educationally backward classes for a specific state or Union Territory, the Court stated:

“The intent of the Constitution is clear – the classification of communities as backward is to be done with reference to the social context of a particular region. Extending such classification mechanically to other states would dilute the very philosophy behind reservation.”

The Court noted that the petitioner’s ancestral village – Gondpur Banehra – fell under District Hoshiarpur in Punjab in 1955, but became part of Himachal Pradesh post reorganisation in 1966. Thus, the state of origin for reservation purposes had shifted permanently.

It further cautioned: “To treat reservation as a right that travels with a person would violate the principles of equitable distribution of state resources and distort the rationale of affirmative action.”

“No Legitimate Expectation Where Constitutional Mandate Is Clear – Migration After Reorganisation Does Not Create Entitlement”

Rejecting the petitioner’s argument of legitimate expectation, the Court held that an expectation contrary to constitutional policy or clarified administrative rules cannot be protected in law.

The Court observed: “The benefit of reservation is not a personal right but a constitutional tool for correcting historical injustice faced by communities in specific social settings.”

Even if the petitioner was born in Punjab, the Court clarified that “the rights under reservation flow from the condition of the community in the geographical setting, not merely from individual birth or domicile.”

Petition Dismissed, Reservation Claim to Be Made in State of Origin Only

In conclusion, the High Court held: “This Court is not satisfied with the arguments put forth by learned counsel for the petitioner. 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.”

Accordingly, the writ petition was dismissed, and the rejection of the petitioner’s claim by PSPCL was upheld.

The judgment marks a crucial reaffirmation that reservation benefits are inseparably tied to state-specific social realities, and migration or present residence cannot override the constitutional scheme which limits affirmative action to those who have historically suffered disadvantage within the boundaries of that particular state.

Date of Decision: 01.10.2025