"Parental Permanent Abode at the Date of Notification" Test Governs State-Specific OBC Reservation

Commentary on Punjab & Haryana High Court's decision in Vinay Sahotra v. The Punjab State Power Corporation Limited & Ors. (CWP-20526-2025, decided on 01.10.2025)

Introduction

The Punjab & Haryana High Court, per Justice Harpreet Singh Brar, has dismissed a writ petition challenging the rejection of a Backward Class (BC) reservation claim by the Punjab State Power Corporation Limited (PSPCL). The petitioner, Mr. Vinay Sahotra, sought appointment as Assistant Engineer/OT (Electrical) under the BC category pursuant to PSPCL’s advertisement dated 27.11.2024, having qualified GATE-2024 and ranked in the BC merit list. PSPCL declined his BC claim by order Endorsement No. 267/71 dated 19.05.2025 on the ground that he was a “migrant OBC” to Punjab and could not claim State-level BC reservation in Punjab.

The core issue before the Court was whether a candidate, born and domiciled in Punjab and belonging to a community recognized as Backward Class in Punjab, could avail Punjab’s BC reservation when the permanent abode of his parents at the time of the relevant notification (1955) was in an area that, post-reorganization (1966), became part of Himachal Pradesh.

The decision crystallizes a decisive principle for OBC reservations: State-level reservation benefits are non-portable across States; the “state of origin” for reservation entitlement is determined by the permanent abode of the parents at the time of issuance of the relevant notification, and this attaches to the progeny as well.

Summary of the Judgment

• The Court upheld PSPCL’s rejection of the petitioner’s claim to BC reservation in Punjab for the post of Assistant Engineer/OT (Electrical), dismissing the writ petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution.
• It held that OBC/BC benefits are state-specific and non-portable. The relevant test for determining a candidate’s “state of origin” is the permanent abode of the parents at the date of the applicable notification recognizing the community as backward.
• Based on documentary evidence (including Gram Panchayat and revenue records), the petitioner’s grandfather was resident of Gondpur Banehra (Tehsil Amb, District Una)—an area that, though part of composite Punjab pre-1966, became part of Himachal Pradesh post-reorganization. The petitioner’s father moved to Punjab decades later (1991/1999). Hence, the petitioner is considered a migrant to Punjab for the purpose of reservation.
• The Court relied on Government of India clarifications (1994 and 2002) and Supreme Court precedents to hold that migrants and their progeny cannot claim State-level reservation benefits in the State of immigration—even if the caste bears the same nomenclature in both States.
• PSPCL’s advertisement itself confined reservation to candidates with Punjab domicile and required certificates in accordance with Punjab Government instructions.
• Authorities cited by the petitioner (including Gurvinder Singh) were distinguished as relating to issuance of caste certificates, not entitlement to State-level reservation benefits in the migrated State.

Factual Background

• PSPCL’s advertisement dated 27.11.2024 invited applications for Assistant Engineer/OT (Electrical); two posts were reserved for BC, one for BC-women. The petitioner cleared GATE-2024, scored 30/100 (above the BC cut-off 22.5), and ranked 17th in the merit list.
• The petitioner belongs to the Jhinwar community, recognized as BC by Punjab vide notification dated 03.09.1955. He furnished initial and fresh BC and residence/domicile certificates at PSPCL’s request.
• PSPCL requisitioned ancestral revenue records to ascertain whether the petitioner’s forefathers were domiciled in Punjab in 1955. The Gram Panchayat letter (27.06.2025) showed the petitioner’s grandfather was a resident of Gondpur Banehra, Tehsil Amb, District Una prior to 1955—an area that became part of Himachal Pradesh in 1966.
• PSPCL rejected the BC claim on 19.05.2025, citing the Ministry of Social Justice & Empowerment’s 25.11.2002 clarification on migrant OBCs.
• Prior writ (CWP-8019-2025) resulted in a direction to decide the petitioner’s representation, culminating in the impugned rejection order.

Key Legal Issue

Whether, for State-level BC reservation in Punjab, a candidate whose parents’ permanent abode at the date of the governing notification (1955) was in an area that later became part of Himachal Pradesh—and who moved to Punjab subsequently—can be treated as eligible under the Punjab BC quota.

Analysis

Precedents and Normative Instruments Cited

1. Marri Chandra Shekhar Rao v. Dean, Seth G.S. Medical College, (1990) 3 SCC 130

   A Constitution Bench held that SC/ST benefits are State-specific, reflecting localized social conditions and disadvantages; they are not portable across States. The Court in the present case uses this seminal principle by analogy for OBC/BC reservations to emphasize the territorial and contextual nature of affirmative action.

2. MCD v. Veena, (2001) 6 SCC 571

   The Supreme Court clarified that specification of castes/groups as OBCs is done in relation to a State/UT, based on the nature and extent of disadvantages there. Same-named castes in different States may rest on distinct data. The present judgment draws on this to reject the assumption that a caste’s status in one State automatically confers benefits in another.

3. Bir Singh v. Delhi Jal Board, (2018) 10 SCC 312 (with reference to State Of Uttaranchal v. Sandeep Kumar Singh, (2010) 12 SCC 794)

   Bir Singh reaffirms that the enabling power under Article 16(4) cannot be used to bypass State/Union Territory specificity established under Articles 341/342 (for SC/ST). While primarily in the SC/ST context, the logic preserves the integrity of State-specific lists—reinforced here in the OBC/BC context with Article 342A considerations.

4. Pankaj Kumar v. State of Jharkhand (Supreme Court)

   Cited to reiterate that reservation benefits do not travel with a migrant, even in State reorganization scenarios. The High Court reads Pankaj Kumar as limited to persons born prior to reorganization and emphasizes that progeny born thereafter are treated as migrants for reservation in the migrated State.

5. Gurvinder Singh v. State of Punjab (LPA-1040-2018, P&H, decided on 21.02.2023)

   Distinguished by the High Court: Gurvinder Singh concerned the appropriate authority to issue a caste certificate, not entitlement to State-level reservation benefits in the State of immigration. The Court underscores the doctrinal difference between “certificate issuance” and “benefit entitlement.”

6. Government of India Clarifications
   • MoW/DoPT letter dated 08.04.1994: A State/UT of migration may issue an OBC certificate based on a genuine certificate issued to the father by the State of origin; however, the migrant is entitled to OBC concessions in the State of origin and under the Union (Central List), not in the State of migration.
   • MoSJE letter dated 25.11.2002: For migrant OBCs, the “crucial date” test: for persons born after the date of notification, the place of residence for determining backward status is the permanent abode of the parents at the time of issue of the relevant notification “applicable in the case they claim to belong to.”
7. Article 342A (SEBCs) of the Constitution

   The Court quotes Article 342A, noting that SEBC specification is with respect to a State/UT and that, notwithstanding the Central List (clauses (1)-(2)), clause (3) authorizes States to maintain their own SEBC lists “for its own purposes,” underscoring the territorial character of backward-class identification and benefits.

Legal Reasoning

1. Backward status is State-specific and contextual

   Drawing from Marri Chandra, Veena, and Bir Singh, the Court reiterates that affirmative action rests on localized data on social disadvantage; the same caste may not be similarly placed across States. Therefore, State-level reservation is inherently territorial and non-portable.

2. The determinative test: parental permanent abode at the date of notification

   The Court adopts the 25.11.2002 MoSJE “crucial date” clarification: for a person born after the relevant notification (here, 03.09.1955), the place of residence for determining backward status is the permanent abode of the parents at the time of issuance of that notification. Revenue records and Gram Panchayat evidences established the petitioner’s grandfather’s permanent abode in what is now District Una (Himachal Pradesh), and the petitioner’s father continued to reside there until moving to Punjab decades later. Thus, the petitioner’s “state of origin” for BC entitlement remains Himachal Pradesh.

3. State reorganization does not “carry” reservation benefits across borders

   The Court reasons that the 1966 reorganization, which shifted Tehsil Una from composite Punjab to Himachal Pradesh, does not alter the State-specificity of benefits. Allowing portability would undermine equitable allocation of resources and distort the territorial logic of affirmative action.

4. Domicile in Punjab is insufficient

   Even assuming the petitioner’s domicile and birth in Punjab, domicile alone does not decide entitlement to State-level BC reservation if the parental permanent abode at the relevant notification time was elsewhere (Himachal Pradesh). The High Court carefully distinguishes domicile from “state of origin” for reservation purposes.

5. Distinguishing certificate issuance from benefit entitlement

   Referring to the 1994 clarification and Gurvinder Singh, the Court underscores that while a State of migration may issue an OBC certificate for administrative convenience, it does not follow that State-level reservation benefits are available in the migrated State. Benefits remain tied to the State of origin and, where applicable, the Central List.

6. Advertisement conditions reinforce the conclusion

   PSPCL’s advertisement expressly confined reserved-category posts to Punjab domicile candidates and required category certificates as per Punjab Government instructions. That contractual/administrative frame further supports PSPCL’s rejection of the petitioner’s claim in light of the territorial State-specific rule.

7. Disposition

   The petition was dismissed. Pending miscellaneous applications were disposed of.

Impact and Prospective Significance

• Clarified test for OBC reservation entitlement: The High Court elevates and applies the “parental permanent abode at the date of notification” test, making it a practical touchstone for Punjab recruitments and admissions.
• Non-portability reaffirmed, including for progeny: Migrants and their children born in the migrated State cannot claim its State-level OBC reservation; benefits lie in the State of origin (and Central List, where applicable).
• Recruiting authorities’ due diligence: Expect greater insistence on ancestral residence documentation around the notification date (e.g., revenue records, Gram Panchayat certificates) to identify the correct State of origin.
• State reorganization scenarios: The judgment offers a structured approach to legacy domicile/abode issues when ancestral areas shifted States due to reorganization (as with Una’s shift from composite Punjab to Himachal Pradesh in 1966).
• Administrative clarity: Separating the questions of (a) who may issue a certificate and (b) who is entitled to State-specific reservation benefits will reduce administrative confusion and litigation.
• Policy alignment with Article 342A(3): The decision harmonizes with States’ authority to maintain their own SEBC lists and to apply benefits territorially.

Complex Concepts Simplified

• State-specific vs. Central List: - The Central List (Article 342A(1)-(2)) applies to Central Government jobs/educational institutions. State Lists (under Article 342A(3)) are created and applied by States for their own purposes. Being in one list does not automatically confer benefits in the other.
• Domicile vs. State of Origin for reservation: - Domicile is your legal home. For State-level OBC reservation, the High Court emphasizes “state of origin” determined by the parents’ permanent abode at the time of the relevant notification recognizing the community as backward. Domicile alone is insufficient if state of origin lies elsewhere.
• Migrant OBC: - A person whose state of origin (by the parental permanent abode test) is one State but who has settled in another State. Migrant OBCs are entitled to State-level reservation benefits in the State of origin, and to Central OBC benefits if their caste appears in the Central List; not in the State of migration.
• Certificate issuance vs. benefit entitlement: - For administrative ease, a State of migration may issue an OBC certificate to a migrant based on proof from the State of origin (1994 circular). But entitlement to State-level reservation benefits remains with the State of origin.
• Reorganization: - When State boundaries change, the backward status and benefits remain tied to the territory and data of the State into which the ancestral area now falls; benefits do not “travel” with the family to a new State merely because they later migrated.

Practical Takeaways

• Applicants: If you intend to claim a State-level OBC reservation, be prepared to prove your parents’ permanent abode at the date of the State’s notification recognizing your community as backward. Birth and domicile in the current State may not suffice if parental abode was elsewhere at that time.
• Recruiters/Universities: Incorporate clear guidance on documentary proofs for “state of origin.” Align advertisement conditions with Article 342A(3) and relevant central clarifications (1994, 2002).
• Administrations: Distinguish processes for certificate issuance from determinations of reservation entitlement; train document checking committees accordingly.
• Migrants and progeny: For State-level benefits, look to the State of origin; for Central institutions and services, check the Central OBC List status of your community.

Conclusion

The Punjab & Haryana High Court’s decision in Vinay Sahotra v. PSPCL is a meticulous reaffirmation—and lucid application—of the territorial character of affirmative action. It aligns OBC reservation with the well-established SC/ST jurisprudence: benefits are State-specific and grounded in localized socio-historical data. The Court advances administrative clarity by endorsing the “parental permanent abode at the date of notification” test for identifying a candidate’s State of origin, and by distinguishing the issuance of OBC certificates from the entitlement to State-level benefits.

In practical terms, the judgment disallows the portability of State-level OBC reservation across State borders, including for the children of migrants, and provides a workable evidentiary framework for recruiters. It will likely shape future recruitments and admissions in Punjab and offers a persuasive template for similarly situated States, especially in complex reorganization contexts. The petition’s dismissal thus signifies not only the resolution of an individual dispute but also a clarifying precedent in the administration of OBC reservations under Article 342A.

---

Case Citation: Vinay Sahotra v. The Punjab State Power Corporation Limited & Ors., CWP-20526-2025, Punjab & Haryana High Court, reserved on 08.09.2025, pronounced on 01.10.2025, per Harpreet Singh Brar, J.

Impugned Order: Endorsement No. 267/71 dated 19.05.2025 (PSPCL).

Disposition: Writ Petition dismissed; pending applications disposed of.