Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

8. In rebuttal, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that respondent has admitted that if a candidate belonging to the SC/ST category migrates from one state to another State, on migration he does not lose his status as SC/ST from the state of origin and not from the State he has migrated to. Hence, petitioner‟s ST category Certificate belonging to Meena/Mina community issued by NCT of Delhi has to be considered for the purposes of appointment. Reliance was placed upon a decision of this Court in Rahul Kumar Meena Vs. Union of India and Others 2019 SCC OnLine Del 7893 in support of petitioner‟s case.

11. On this aspect we find that time and again various instructions/clarifications on the question of admissibility of caste certificate in respect of candidates belonging to the reserved categories upon being migrated to the other State, have been issued. It has been made clear that for the purpose of education, employment etc., the competent authority of the State/Union Territory of the origin State, upon being satisfied or pursuant to an inquiry, has to issue a Caste Certificate to a candidate and upon being migrated from the State/U.T. of his origin to another State/U.T, where his caste is not mentioned in list, the concessions and benefits from the State of his origin and Union Government, shall be admissible and not from the State where he has migrated to.

18. Applying the dictum of Supreme Court in S. Pushpa (Supra) to the facts of the present case, we find that since petitioner‟s father had migrated from Rajasthan to Delhi, petitioner has been issued ST category certificate for caste "Meena" by the NCT of Delhi and even though caste "Meena" may not be mentioned in the Central List of Delhi, petitioner cannot be precluded to get benefit of his caste Certificate for having migrated to the State of Delhi and shall be entitled to get benefit of caste certificate from the State of his origin i.e. State of Rajasthan. The respondent has gravely erred in denying this benefit to petitioner on the premise that he has applied under the State of Delhi.