While dismissing a petition challenging the denial of Backward Class (BC) reservation by the Punjab State Power Corporation Limited (PSPCL), the Punjab & Haryana High Court (Chandigarh Bench) clarified that the petitioner, though born in Punjab, could not claim reservation benefits in the State, as his father was originally domiciled in Himachal Pradesh. The Court thus held that the benefits of reservation cannot be made portable across States, as they are contingent upon the socio-economic realities of a specific geographical region.
The Court extensively referred to government notifications and constitutional provisions to clarify that caste-based reservation is territorial and not transferable. Reliance was placed on a letter issued by the Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment on November 25, 2002, which stated that the place of residence of parents at the time of issuance of the notification determines caste-based eligibility.
The Court observed that Article 342A of the Constitution empowers the President and the Governor to identify socially and educationally backward classes “with respect to any State or Union Territory”, and hence, backward class recognition is necessarily state-specific. A community’s inclusion in one state does not automatically entitle its members to claim a reservation in another.
A Single Judge Bench of Justice Harpreet Singh Brar observed that the petitioner could not claim a reservation in Punjab merely based on birth or residence when his ancestral domicile lay in Himachal Pradesh. The Single Judge reaffirmed that reservation benefits under the Backward Class category are state-specific and non-transferable, emphasizing that the constitutional philosophy of affirmative action cannot be stretched beyond the territorial realities that define social disadvantage.
The Bench further observed that the petitioner’s claim was untenable since his father’s permanent abode at the time of Punjab’s 1955 notification was in Himachal Pradesh. Even though the petitioner was born in Punjab, he could not inherit a BC status recognized in a different state. The Bench emphasized that the idea of backwardness is territorial and cannot travel with the individual.
Briefly, in this case, the petitioner had applied for the post of Assistant Engineer/OT (Electrical) advertised by PSPCL on 27 November 2024, reserved for the Backward Class (BC) category. He appeared for the GATE 2024 exam, scored marks above the BC cut-off, and claimed to belong to the Jhinwar community recognized as BC under the Punjab Government’s 1955 notification. Even though the petitioner furnished his caste and domicile certificates issued by the Tehsildar, Amritsar, the PSPCL rejected his claim, stating that as his father had migrated to Punjab from Himachal Pradesh in 1999, the petitioner was ineligible for Punjab’s BC quota.
Appearances:
Advocate Abhishek Thakur, for the Petitioner
Advocate Akash Vashisth, for the Respondent
