Migrants Cannot Claim State-Specific Backward Class Benefits in Punjab Recruitment: Punjab and Haryana High Court
Safiya Malik
The High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Single Bench of Justice Harpreet Singh Brar dismissed a petition challenging the Punjab State Power Corporation Limited’s refusal to grant Backward Class category status to an applicant for recruitment as Assistant Engineer (Electrical). The Court held that individuals whose families migrated to Punjab from another State after the relevant notification cannot claim reservation benefits in Punjab, even if the caste is recognized as Backward Class in both States. It affirmed that reservation benefits are territorially confined and linked to the State of origin, upholding PSPCL’s rejection of the petitioner’s claim.
The case arose from a petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, where Vinay Sahotra sought the quashing of the order dated May 19, 2025, by the Deputy Secretary (Recruitment), PSPCL, which rejected his claim to be considered under the Backward Class (BC) category for recruitment to the post of Assistant Engineer/OT (Electrical). The petitioner had appeared in the Graduate Aptitude Test in Engineering (GATE) 2024, scoring 30 out of 100 marks, which was above the cut-off for BC candidates. A merit list published by PSPCL showed the petitioner at serial number 17 in the BC category.
According to the petitioner, he belonged to the Jhinwar community within the Hindu religion, recognized as a Backward Class in Punjab under a 1955 government notification. He argued that although his grandfather was a resident of Tehsil Una (then part of Punjab but now in Himachal Pradesh), his father had moved to Punjab in 1999, and he himself was born and raised in Amritsar. The petitioner contended that his Backward Class status under the Punjab notification entitled him to reservation benefits in the state. He produced documents including his birth certificate, domicile certificate, and Backward Class certificate issued by the Tehsildar, Amritsar.
The respondents, represented by PSPCL, argued that the petitioner’s claim was invalid because the family had migrated from Himachal Pradesh and therefore fell under the jurisdiction of that state for reservation purposes. Citing a clarification from the Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment dated November 25, 2002, the respondents contended that persons belonging to the Backward Class who migrated from another state could not claim reservation benefits in Punjab.
Justice Harpreet Singh Brar examined the constitutional and statutory framework governing the identification of socially and educationally backward classes. The Court noted that the petitioner’s family originally hailed from Tehsil Una, which was part of the erstwhile composite State of Punjab but became part of Himachal Pradesh after the 1966 reorganization. “The place of permanent abode of their father at the time of the notification is to be looked at,” the Court stated, adding that since the father had resided in Himachal Pradesh until 1999, “he does not belong to this State originally.”
The Court referred to the Government of India’s clarifications dated April 8, 1994, and November 25, 2002, which provided that persons migrating from one state to another for education or employment cannot claim reservation benefits in the state to which they migrate. “The OBC status of the person in relation to the State or Union Territory of his origin does not get altered merely by migration,” the Court quoted, stating that a migrant OBC’s benefits are limited to their state of origin.
Relying on precedent, Justice Brar cited the Constitution Bench judgment in Marri Chandra Shekhar Rao vs. The Dean, Seth G.S. Medical College (1990) 3 SCC 130, which held that “Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes cannot claim the benefits of reservation in a state other than the one where they are recognized.” The Court also referred to MCD vs. Veena (2001) 6 SCC 571, which clarified that backwardness is state-specific and dependent on the unique social and economic conditions within a particular region. Justice Brar observed that “merely because a given caste is specified in one State as belonging to OBCs does not necessarily mean that if there be another group belonging to the same nomenclature in another State, such a person is entitled to the rights, privileges and benefits admissible to the members of that caste.”
The Court further relied on Bir Singh vs. Delhi Jal Board (2018) 10 SCC 312 and Pankaj Kumar vs. State of Jharkhand, stating that reservation entitlements are confined to the geographical limits of the state where the caste is notified. It noted that “the constitutional philosophy acknowledges that the idea of ‘backwardness’ is contextual and territorial,” and that extending such benefits across states “would be violative of the principle of equitable distribution of resources.” The Court remarked that the petitioner’s grandfather’s domicile in Una established the family’s roots in Himachal Pradesh, and “the connection between the geographical area of origin of the identity of the family cannot be severed on account of their subsequent move to Punjab.”
The Bench recorded that granting the benefit of reservation to the petitioner in Punjab “would also mean denying the same to a better-suited person belonging to the BC category in relation to the State of Punjab. The reservation of posts for reserved categories is applicable for candidates of Punjab domicile only.”
“In view of the discussion above, 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 present petition is dismissed.” Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, were also disposed of.
Advocates Representing the Parties:
For the Petitioner: Mr. Abhishek Thakur, Advocate
For the Respondents: Mr. Akash Vashisth, Advocate for PSPCL
Neautral Citation: 2025:PHHC:138754
Case Title: Vinay Sahotra vs. The Punjab State Power Corporation Limited and others
Case Number: CWP-20526-2025
Bench: Justice Harpreet Singh Brar
