The Madhya Pradesh High Court ruled that married women who move to MP after marriage are entitled to SC/ST/OBC reservation benefits, even if they hold caste certificates issued by their native state, ensuring fairness in public employment.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
MADHYA PRADESH: In a landmark judgment reaffirming the constitutional rights of married women, the Madhya Pradesh High Court has ruled that women who settle in Madhya Pradesh after marriage are entitled to reservation benefits, provided their caste is recognized as a reserved category in both their native state and Madhya Pradesh.
The ruling was delivered by Justice Jai Kumar Pillai, while allowing a batch of writ petitions challenging the cancellation of candidatures for the post of Uchha Madhyamik Shikshak (High School Teacher).
Issue Before the Court
Whether a woman belonging to a reserved category (SC/ST/OBC), who originally belonged to another state but acquired domicile of Madhya Pradesh after marriage, can be denied reservation benefits solely because her caste certificate was not issued by Madhya Pradesh authorities.
Background of the Case
The petitioners were women candidates belonging to reserved categories, namely SC, ST, and OBC, who were originally residents of states other than Madhya Pradesh and possessed valid caste certificates issued by the competent authorities of their respective native states.
Upon marriage to permanent residents of Madhya Pradesh, the petitioners shifted their residence to the State and were issued domicile certificates in accordance with prevailing government policies. Thereafter, they applied for appointment to the post of Uchha Madhyamik Shikshak in various streams under the reserved categories.
Although the petitioners successfully qualified the written examination and were called for document verification, their candidatures were cancelled at the verification stage solely on the ground that they failed to submit caste certificates issued by the competent authority of the State of Madhya Pradesh.
Arguments Presented
Petitioners
- They fulfilled all educational qualifications under the Madhya Pradesh School Education Service (Teaching Cadre) Recruitment Rules, 2018.
- The advertisement did not mandate submission of a caste certificate issued only by Madhya Pradesh.
- Cancellation without a show-cause notice or hearing violated principles of natural justice.
- Marriage should not be treated as a migration for the purpose of reservation.
State
- The State argued that:
- The petitioners failed to produce caste certificates issued by Madhya Pradesh.
- They falsely declared themselves to be domiciled in online applications.
- The tehsildar had rejected their applications for state caste certificates.
- In the absence of MP-issued caste certificates, they were ineligible.
Court’s Analysis & Findings
No Express Bar in Recruitment Rules
The Court carefully examined the 2018 Recruitment Rules and the advertisement and found:
“There is no clear, specific or express clause stipulating that only those candidates who possess a caste certificate issued by the Competent Authority of Madhya Pradesh would be eligible.”
Marriage Does Not Amount to Migration
The Court categorically held:
“Upon marriage to a permanent resident of Madhya Pradesh, such women cannot be treated as migrants and shall be reckoned as domiciled residents for service and reservation-related purposes.”
Rules of the Game Cannot Be Changed Midway
Relying on K. Manjusree v. State of Andhra Pradesh (2008) and the Constitution Bench judgment in Tej Prakash Pathak v. Rajasthan High Court (2024), the Court reaffirmed:
Recruitment authorities cannot introduce new eligibility conditions after the selection process has commenced.
The Court relied on:
- Dr. Alka Singh v. State of M.P. (2012) – held that a woman does not lose reservation benefits after marriage if her caste is recognized in both states.
- S. Pushpa v. Sivachanmugavelu (2005) – emphasized liberal interpretation of reservation.
- Indra Sawhney v. Union of India (1992) – reservation as a remedial and beneficial provision.
The Madhya Pradesh High Court allowed all the writ petitions and quashed the orders cancelling the petitioners’ candidatures. The Court directed the respondent authorities to verify whether the caste or community of the petitioners is recognized as a reserved category in both the State from which the caste certificate was originally issued and the State of Madhya Pradesh.
Upon such verification, if the caste is found to be recognized in both States, the authorities were directed to proceed with the appointments of the eligible petitioners, along with the determination of seniority, notional pay fixation, and the grant of all consequential service benefits.
The entire exercise was ordered to be completed within a period of sixty days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the order.
Case Title:
Anusuiya Prajapati v. The State of Madhya Pradesh and Other (and connected petitions)
W.P. No. 10277/2021 (with W.P. Nos. 18396/2022, 19690/2022, 19986/2022, 20187/2022, 4358/2023)
READ ORDER
Click Here to Read More Reports On Caste Certificate
