OBC Caste Certificate from Maharashtra or UP Cannot Be Used for Reservation in MP Services, Rules Jabalpur Bench
The Madhya Pradesh High Court held that women who migrate to MP after marriage must obtain a fresh caste certificate from MP authorities to claim OBC reservation in State services, even if their caste is notified as OBC in both States.
Three women candidates who had settled in Balaghat, Madhya Pradesh after marriage had their candidature for the post of Middle Teacher rejected by the District Education Officer, Balaghat. The verifying officer noted that their OBC caste certificates had not been issued by a competent officer in Madhya Pradesh. Justice Vishal Dhagat, sitting singly at the Jabalpur Bench, dismissed their writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India on 16 June 2026, holding that a caste certificate issued in another State cannot be used to claim reservation in MP services, and that the petitioners were required to obtain a fresh certificate from the competent authority in Madhya Pradesh.
The Dispute Before the High Court
Petitioner No. 1, Sunita Pathode, and Petitioner No. 2, Lalita Harinkhede, are residents of Gondia, Maharashtra. Their parents belong to the ‘Kunbi’ and ‘Pawar’ communities, notified as OBC in Maharashtra. Petitioner No. 3, Pooja Sahu, is a resident of Hamirpur, Uttar Pradesh, and belongs to the ‘Teli’ community, notified as OBC in UP.
The OBC caste certificate of Sunita Pathode was issued by the SDO, Deori, Maharashtra. That of Lalita Harinkhede was issued by the SDO, Tirora, Maharashtra. Pooja Sahu's certificate was issued by the Tehsildar, Hamirpur, Uttar Pradesh. All three petitioners had married and settled in Balaghat, Madhya Pradesh.
On 23 November 2022 and 24 November 2022, the petitioners appeared before the District Education Officer, Balaghat for document verification. The verifying officer endorsed that their candidature was to be rejected because the OBC caste certificates had not been issued by a competent officer in Madhya Pradesh. The petitioners challenged these endorsements, collectively filed as Annexure-P/6, by way of Writ Petition No. 657 of 2023.
The Legal Question
The court framed the question squarely: whether a person whose caste is notified as OBC in another State, and who holds a caste certificate from that State, can claim the same reservation benefit in Madhya Pradesh if the same caste is also notified as OBC in MP.
Counsel for the petitioners, Shri Pawan Kawre, argued that since the petitioners had married in Madhya Pradesh, were residing at Balaghat, and their castes were also notified as OBC in MP, the rejection of their candidature amounted to discrimination. He relied on the judgment in Dr. Alka Singh vs. State of M.P., reported in 2012 (III) MPWN 84, to support the claim that the petitioners were entitled to OBC benefits in MP.
The State, represented by Government Advocate Shri Sumit Raghuvanshi, countered that no caste certificate had been issued to any of the petitioners by a competent authority in Madhya Pradesh. He pointed to two earlier decisions — in WP No. 913/2023 and WP No. 28968/2022 — where a similar issue arose and the court, by order dated 8 February 2023, held that petitioners who had not obtained a caste certificate from the concerned authority in MP could not have their plea entertained. The State submitted that the case relied upon by the petitioners was not applicable to the facts at hand.
How the Court Reasoned
Justice Dhagat accepted the State's position and laid down the applicable legal framework in clear terms. The court held that caste status is attached to a place. Reservation benefit flows only when a person belongs to a particular caste and is dwelling in the area for which the Presidential notification applies. Migrants who move from one State to another cannot carry their reservation entitlement with them, because Presidential notifications regarding caste are area-specific.
The court drew a distinction for women who migrate after marriage. Where a woman's caste is notified as SC/ST/OBC in both her home State and in Madhya Pradesh, and she has permanently settled in MP after marriage, she is entitled to the benefit of reservation and cannot be deprived of it. However, the court was emphatic that this benefit can only be extended on the basis of a caste certificate issued by the competent authority in Madhya Pradesh. A certificate issued in Maharashtra or Uttar Pradesh cannot be relied upon for this purpose.
The reasoning behind this requirement is institutional. Caste certificates are issued by expert bodies that have knowledge of Central Government and State Government notifications and that verify the factual aspects of a person's caste. The court held that it would not enter into a fact-finding exercise to examine whether the petitioners' castes in Maharashtra and UP are the same as those notified as OBC in MP. That exercise belongs to the expert body, not to the court.
On the precedent relied upon by the petitioners, the court found that Dr. Alka Singh vs. State of M.P. was not applicable to the present facts. The court also noted that in the two earlier writ petitions involving a similar issue, the court had already declined to entertain the plea at that stage for the same reason — absence of a caste certificate from MP.
The court was clear that had the petitioners been issued a caste certificate in Madhya Pradesh, that certificate could have been used for the purpose of claiming reservation in State services. The certificates from Maharashtra and UP, however, could not serve that function.
Outcome
Writ Petition No. 657 of 2023 was dismissed. The endorsements dated 23 November 2022 and 24 November 2022 rejecting the petitioners' candidature for the post of Middle Teacher on the ground that their OBC caste certificates were not issued by a competent authority in Madhya Pradesh were upheld. The court did not grant any relief to the petitioners but, by implication of its reasoning, left open the avenue for them to apply for a caste certificate from the competent authority in Madhya Pradesh.