Chandigarh, Oct 3: The Punjab and Haryana High Court has ruled that backward class (BC) reservation cannot be claimed across state boundaries, rejecting a plea from an Amritsar resident who sought to avail BC status in Punjab despite his family’s permanent roots in Himachal Pradesh.
A division bench led by Justice H.S. Brar dismissed the petition filed by Vinay Sahotra against the Punjab State Power Corporation Limited (PSPCL). Sahotra had challenged PSPCL’s decision to deny him BC category benefits in its recruitment for assistant engineers. His claim was turned down in May 2025 despite him declaring that he belonged to the Jhinwar community, recognized as a backward class in Punjab under a 1955 notification.
“The petitioner can only claim the reservation for persons belonging to the BC category in Himachal Pradesh, which was the permanent abode of the petitioner’s father since its creation in 1966,” the bench noted.
Sahotra, born in Amritsar in 1999, had argued that his father moved to Punjab in 1991 and that his family’s roots lay in the erstwhile Punjab before reorganization. His grandfather had lived in Una district, which became part of Himachal Pradesh after the 1966 bifurcation.
The court, however, pointed to a 2002 central government notification that determines caste certificate eligibility by looking at the father’s permanent residence at the time of the presidential notification. “While the petitioner’s grandfather resided in the composite Punjab, his father has been considered a permanent resident of Himachal Pradesh since 1966,” the order stated. “Merely shifting to Punjab in 1991 does not alter that position.”
The bench underlined that backward class recognition is tied to the historical and social disadvantages of a community within a specific geography. “It is not necessary that the same community faces identical hindrances all across the nation,” the court observed. “It would be unwise to interpret this constitutional provision as an attempt to extend blanket reservation everywhere.”
The judgment also clarified that migration dates are irrelevant to determining eligibility. “If a person migrates to another state after the issuance of the presidential notification, they would be considered a migrant therein. Both the original migrants and their progeny will be regarded as migrants and will not be entitled to reservation benefits in the state of migration,” the court said.
Concluding, the bench noted that the composite Punjab ceased to exist in 1966, and Sahotra’s family abode was then placed under Himachal Pradesh jurisdiction. Therefore, the petitioner’s claim to BC benefits in Punjab could not be sustained.
