The order decides only the reservation claim for the Nursing Officer post; it does not decide the appellant's caste status in Gujarat or any other entitlement.
- Case
- Baria Sharmishtha Ben v State of Rajasthan
- Court
- High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jodhpur
- Decision
- Citation
- 2026:RJ-JD:55282-DB
- Bench
- Vinit Kumar Mathur, J; Chandra Shekhar Sharma, J
- Case numbers
- D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 1695/2025
- Outcome
- Special appeal dismissed; the Single Bench order dated 23 September 2025 dismissing the writ petition stands; the appellant's candidature for the Nursing Officer post remains considered in the General Category.
Appeal dismissed; General Category treatment stands
A Division Bench of the Rajasthan High Court has dismissed the appeal of a Gujarat-origin candidate who claimed Scheduled Tribe reservation for a Nursing Officer post in Rajasthan, holding that a candidate belonging to the Scheduled Tribe category in a State other than Rajasthan, applying for a post under an advertisement stipulating that such a candidate will be considered under the General Category, is automatically disentitled to claim the benefit of reservation under the Scheduled Tribe category.
The Bench of Justice Vinit Kumar Mathur and Justice Chandra Shekhar Sharma agreed with the Single Bench, which had dismissed the appellant's writ petition on 23 September 2025. The Court found the appeal devoid of any force and dismissed it, leaving the appellant's candidature for the Nursing Officer post to be considered in the General Category.
A Gujarat candidate, a Rajasthan marriage, a Rajasthan post
The appellant, Baria Sharmishtha Ben, hails from the State of Gujarat, where her caste is recognised in the Scheduled Tribe category. Her marriage was solemnised with a person living in the State of Rajasthan who belongs to the same caste. After her marriage, she applied for appointment to the post of Nursing Officer and claimed reservation in the Scheduled Tribe category.
The State rejected her candidature in the Scheduled Tribe category and considered her for appointment to the post of Nursing Officer in the General Category. She challenged that treatment in a writ petition before the Single Bench, which dismissed it, relying on the Supreme Court's judgment in Ranjana Kumari v State of Uttarakhand, Civil Appeal No. 8425 of 2003, decided on 1 November 2018. The present special appeal was filed against that order.
The appellant's argument: the same caste, the same status
Counsel for the appellant argued that she belongs to a caste considered in the Scheduled Tribe category in Gujarat, and that on the same footing the caste is also categorised as a Scheduled Tribe in Rajasthan, so her candidature was required to be considered in the Scheduled Tribe category. He prayed that the Single Bench's order be quashed and set aside and that the State be directed to consider her candidature in the Scheduled Tribe category for the Nursing Officer post.
The State's answer: migration, and the advertisement
The Additional Advocate General submitted that the appellant's argument could not be sustained in view of the Supreme Court's judgments in Marri Chandra Shekhar Rao v Dean, Seth G.S. Medical College, reported in (1990) 3 SCC 130, and Action Committee on the Issue of Caste Certificate to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes in the State of Maharashtra v Union of India, reported in (1994) 5 SCC 244. In those cases, the Supreme Court held that if a person belonging to a reserved category in a particular State migrates for appointment in another State, the candidate's candidature will be considered in the General Category.
The State also pointed out that there was a specific condition in the advertisement: if a candidate belonging to a reserved category migrates to the State of Rajasthan, the candidate's candidature will be considered in the General Category. On that basis, the State submitted that the Single Bench had rightly dismissed the writ petition and that the order called for no interference.
Why the status does not travel
The Division Bench noted the undisputed facts: the appellant belongs to a caste categorised in the Scheduled Tribe category in Gujarat, and after her marriage she started living in Rajasthan and applied for the Nursing Officer post claiming reservation as a Scheduled Tribe candidate. The Single Bench had held, in the light of Ranjana Kumari, that a candidate belonging to Gujarat who migrates to Rajasthan will be considered in the General Category.
The Court then set out the Supreme Court's reasoning in Marri Chandra Shekhar Rao, including its holding that a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe migrant does not carry the special rights or privileges granted in the original State, and that the expression "in relation to that State" in Articles 341 and 342 would become nugatory if those privileges were carried forward into every State. The Court also set out the Constitution Bench's reasoning in the Action Committee case, including Dr Ambedkar's answer in the Constituent Assembly that a member of a Scheduled Tribe going outside the scheduled or tribal area would certainly not be entitled to carry with him the privileges he was entitled to while residing there, and the Court's observation that merely because a caste bearing the same nomenclature is specified in two States, a person belonging to it in one State is not entitled to the benefits admissible to a member of the Scheduled Tribe of the other State. In view of that law, the Court agreed with the Single Bench.
BANTHRY ANALYSISFor law students
The case turns on the words "in relation to that State" in Articles 341 and 342. Scheduled Tribe status is not a personal attribute that travels with the person; it is a notification tied to a State, made because of the disadvantages suffered by that tribe in that State. The same tribe may face different conditions in different States, so the Constitution lets each State's notification stand on its own footing.
That is also why the advertisement's condition mattered. The appellant was not excluded from the recruitment — she was considered, in the General Category, exactly as the advertisement said a migrant reserved-category candidate would be. The distinction the Court drew is between being denied an opportunity altogether and being denied a State-specific benefit in a State where the notification does not cover you.
READING PROMPTSQuestions for a closer reading
- Why does a caste notified as a Scheduled Tribe in Gujarat not automatically carry ST status in Rajasthan?
- What role did the advertisement's condition play in the Court's decision?
- How did the Court use Articles 341 and 342 of the Constitution to reach its conclusion?
