HC: No quota benefits if one shifts to another state after marriage

Dehradun: Uttarakhand high court has ruled that a woman belonging to the OBC category in Uttar Pradesh cannot claim reservation benefits in Uttarakhand solely on the basis of marriage. However, the court left open her claim for consideration under general category if vacancies remained due to non-joining of selected candidates.The decision came in a common judgment delivered by Justice Manoj Kumar Tiwari in two cases, which the court said the central issue in both petitions was identical.The petitioner belonged to the Kahar community, recognised as Other Backward Class in both Uttar Pradesh and Uttarakhand. The order recorded that she was born and brought up in Uttar Pradesh and her parents were permanent residents of that state. After marriage, she obtained an OBC certificate from Uttarakhand and participated in the selection process for appointment as assistant teacher in govt primary schools, claiming the benefit of OBC reservation, 2023.After she was not selected, she approached the court seeking quashing of the govt order dated Oct 28, 2024. She also sought directions for issuance of an appointment order in her favour for the post of assistant teacher (primary) in Pauri Garhwal district.On the issue of reservation, the state relied on a Nov 12, 2025, judgment of the same court which held that marriage does not improve the status of a candidate and that reservation benefits are available only in the state of origin and not in the state to which a candidate migrates because of marriage. Justice Tiwari accepted the submission and held that there was substance in the state’s argument and rejected the petitioner’s first prayer seeking quashing of the order denying her OBC status in Uttarakhand.The court then recorded the petitioner’s submission that the last selected candidate in the general category had secured 75.62 marks, while she had obtained 75.5 marks, and that some general category candidates offered appointment had not joined. On this aspect, the State said she could submit a representation to the competent authority.The court disposed of both petitions by permitting such representation within one week, directing that a decision be taken in accordance with law within four months thereafter.