By The Punjab and Haryana High Court dismissed a petition challenging the denial of backward class (BC) reservation benefits to a Punjab resident whose father originally hailed from Himachal Pradesh.
Background of the Case
Vinay Sahotra from Amritsar applied for BC reservation for recruitment as an assistant engineer in Punjab State Power Corporation Limited (PSPCL). He claimed eligibility under the Jhinwar community, recognized as a backward class in Punjab through a 1955 notification.
However, the court found that Sahotra’s father had permanently lived in Himachal Pradesh since 1966, after the state’s reorganisation. He only moved to Punjab in 1991. Therefore, the court ruled that Sahotra cannot claim BC benefits in Punjab, as eligibility depends on the father’s permanent residence at the time of the central notification.
Court Observations
The bench, led by Justice HS Brar, clarified several points:
- Reservation benefits are state-specific and cannot be transferred across states.
- Allowing portability would violate the principle of equitable distribution of resources under the Constitution.
- Community backwardness depends on geographical and historical context; not all regions face the same socio-economic challenges.
- The date of migration is irrelevant; individuals moving after the presidential notification are treated as migrants and cannot claim BC benefits in the new state.
Key Takeaways
- Backward class status is tied to the state of origin.
- Migrants and their descendants are ineligible for BC benefits in their state of migration.
- The ruling ensures that originally disadvantaged communities receive benefits intended for them, maintaining fairness and equity in caste-based reservations.
This verdict reinforces the constitutional framework, ensuring reservation benefits reach the communities for which they were designed.
