High Court Ruling: Reservation Cannot Be Denied to Women After Marriage in Madhya Pradesh
The Indore Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court has taken a clear and progressive stand in a landmark case related to reservation rights. The court ruled that women who permanently settle in Madhya Pradesh after marriage cannot be denied reservation benefits merely because their caste certificate was issued by another state, provided that their caste or community is included in the same reserved category in both states.
This judgment brings relief to thousands of women candidates and raises serious questions about rigid and often unfair administrative interpretations followed in government recruitments.
Background of the Case
The case arose from the Higher Secondary Teacher Recruitment process in Madhya Pradesh. Several women candidates applied under reserved categories such as Scheduled Caste (SC), Scheduled Tribe (ST), and Other Backward Classes (OBC). They cleared the written examination and were found eligible on merit.
However, during document verification, their candidature was rejected on the ground that their caste certificates were issued by their native states where they resided before marriage, and not by the Madhya Pradesh government.
The authorities argued that reservation benefits in Madhya Pradesh are applicable only to candidates holding caste certificates issued by the MP government.
Petitioners’ Arguments
Aggrieved by the decision, the women candidates approached the High Court, stating that after marriage they had permanently settled in Madhya Pradesh and possessed valid domicile certificates issued by the state. They argued that their caste or community remained unchanged and was recognized under the same reserved category in both their native state and Madhya Pradesh.
The petitioners emphasized that their caste certificates were legally valid and could not be rejected merely because they were issued by another state. Denial of reservation benefits on such grounds, they argued, violated constitutional principles of equality and social justice.
State Government’s Stand
The state government contended that reservation is a state-specific policy and that only caste certificates issued by the Madhya Pradesh government are valid for availing reservation benefits within the state. Accepting certificates from other states, it argued, could lead to administrative confusion and irregularities.
High Court’s Observations
The case was heard by a bench led by Justice Jaykumar Pillai. After examining the arguments, the court made significant observations. It held that authorities cannot introduce additional eligibility conditions beyond those clearly mentioned in recruitment rules or advertisements.
The court stated that if recruitment rules do not explicitly require a caste certificate issued only by Madhya Pradesh, officials cannot impose such a condition on their own. Denying reservation solely on the basis that the caste certificate was issued by another state is unjustified.
The court also recognized that women relocating to another state after marriage is a social reality. Ignoring this reality, the court noted, is insensitive and contrary to the constitutional principles of equality and justice.
Final Directions of the Court
The High Court directed the authorities to verify whether the caste or community of the women candidates falls under the same reserved category in both their native state and Madhya Pradesh. If found so, they cannot be denied reservation benefits.
The court further instructed that the candidates’ cases should be processed strictly according to recruitment rules and that they should not be harassed unnecessarily.
This judgment is particularly significant for women who relocate after marriage and face administrative hurdles due to documentation from another state. It reinforces that a woman’s rights and identity cannot be determined solely by the state that issued her certificate, and that constitutional guarantees of equality, gender justice, and social justice must prevail over narrow administrative interpretations.