This High Court of Judicature at Patna judgment (Civil Writ
Jurisdiction Case No.11672 of 2024) addresses an important question about
reservation eligibility based on domicile requirements in government
employment. The case highlights the intersection of personal identity, state
residency, and public service recruitment rules.
Case Background
Vidyawati Kiran filed this petition challenging the Bihar
Public Service Commission’s (BPSC) rejection of her candidature for the post of
Assistant Prosecution Officer under Advertisement No. 01/2020. She had
successfully cleared the preliminary and main examinations as a Scheduled Caste
category candidate and appeared for the interview. However, her candidature was
ultimately rejected on the grounds that she could not furnish the required
certificates related to reservation.
The Petitioner’s Arguments
The petitioner, represented by Senior Advocate Mr. Mrigank
Mauli, argued:
- She
belonged to the Scheduled Caste community (Dushadh) both in Bihar and
Uttar Pradesh. - While
her father was a resident of Uttar Pradesh, she had married a Bihar
resident on February 27, 1996. - After
marriage, she completed her entire education in Bihar and became a
permanent resident/domicile of Bihar. - She
cited the case of Dr. Rajesh Kumar Paswan vs. The State of Bihar (AIR 1997
Pat 31), suggesting that as she belonged to the Scheduled Caste community
in both states, she should be eligible for reservation benefits in Bihar.
The Respondents’ Position
The BPSC, represented by Mr. Sanjay Pandey, countered:
- The
advertisement clearly stipulated that reservation benefits would only be
available to permanent residents/domiciles of Bihar. - The
interview letter explicitly mentioned that for married women claiming
reservation, caste certificates and domicile certificates must be in the
name of their father, not their husband. - These
rules were established before the examination process began, and all
candidates, including the petitioner, were aware of these conditions.
The State of Bihar supported the BPSC’s position, arguing
that the Commission had framed its requirements in accordance with state policy
determined before the advertisement was published.
Court’s Analysis
Justice Dr. Anshuman analyzed both positions and highlighted
key aspects of the advertisement and interview letter:
From the advertisement (Clause 6(ii) and (iii)(A)):
- Reservation
benefits based on caste would only be available to those with permanent
residence in Bihar (mool-vasi or original residents of Bihar). - Residents
of other states would not be eligible for reservation benefits. - The
permanent address given in the application would be considered for
reservation purposes. - SC/ST
candidates must submit both caste certificates and permanent
residence/domicile certificates.
From the interview letter (Clause 5(ii)):
- Reservation-claiming
married women must submit caste/creamy layer/residence certificates in
their father’s name and address, not their husband’s.
The court distinguished the present case from Dr. Rajesh
Kumar Paswan’s case, noting:
- The
Paswan case dealt with admission to a P.G. Medical Course, while the
current case involved government employment. - In
paragraph 11 of the Paswan judgment, the court had observed that Dr.
Paswan was not seeking to settle in Bihar just to obtain admission or
special privileges. - In
contrast, seeking government service inherently implies an intention to
settle in the state, creating a material distinction between the two
cases.
Court’s Decision
Justice Dr. Anshuman dismissed the writ petition, holding:
- The
rules were clearly framed and advertised before the examination process
began. - The
petitioner had no option but to follow these rules unless they were
changed. - The
court would not intervene while the rules framed by the BPSC remained
unchanged. - The
petitioner’s circumstances and the precedent she relied upon were
materially different from her own situation.
Key Legal Principles
This judgment underscores several important principles:
- Rule
of the Game: Rules established before a selection process begins must
be adhered to by all participants. Courts typically do not intervene to
change these rules mid-process. - Domicile
Requirements: States have the authority to establish domicile
requirements for reservation benefits in public employment. - Specificity
of Document Requirements: The requirement that married women must
provide certificates in their father’s name rather than their husband’s is
a specific policy choice that courts will generally respect. - Distinction
Between Education and Employment: The court distinguished between
seeking educational opportunities and government employment, suggesting
that different standards may apply to each.
Implications
This case illustrates the complexities of reservation
policies across state boundaries in India. While the Constitution provides for
reservations for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, states have discretion
in implementing these policies, particularly regarding domicile requirements.
For candidates like Vidyawati Kiran who migrate between
states through marriage or other circumstances, these requirements can create
challenges in accessing reservation benefits. The judgment affirms that
candidates must carefully review all eligibility criteria before entering a
competitive examination process, as these rules will generally be enforced as
stated.
The court’s deference to the established rules also
highlights the judiciary’s reluctance to intervene in administrative matters
where clear guidelines have been established and communicated in advance,
emphasizing the importance of transparency in public recruitment processes.
This case serves as an important reminder that while
scheduled caste status may be recognized across state boundaries, the benefits
attached to that status in terms of reservations in public employment may be
subject to state-specific domicile requirements.
Read the full judgement Below;
