Akshay Kumar v. Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd And ORS

 

 
 


 

   


   








 

 



  



































!
"#
$
 



% #

!

 "

#$ %
 % &'(')*!

&
% 
&'

(
)  

# 
&
*+ !
,'

(
)  
 #
-
 

&
  
+(
) 
 &
&
+(
)  
 #
-.

 ////  % + $

&,-
. 
   0
# 
##'


 '
 
 


 "

"

) '
 (
1

#'

+

 
!   

' 
 #
-.



) !


+



##'

(



''!

#
(
 

''

3 #


,   

' 
 #
-.








 
. %+



  

#' 




### 
#' 

 

 0
# 
#

 '
 
 '
456




#+ ' 
'



1178

3
9:
) 
! 
 # 
 ' 


# 



 
;


 
 < !
"'

8<":
+

 # 9

"$

!''
 ' 
  #
-.

(
!
)
 ' 

# 



+
'!

 
 $ 


'


# 
 



 
# '




< 
0



# 

 





 +
 
'

$


!

# !


611
0
# 
!
'







'
"  
77
8

3
96:
&)(

0

'(
$  
" '

'





<"
" 

468

3
9:

 

 '


<


(
! 

 +




< !
"'






 


15.11
2
 (

 ## 

   (


)

  (

# 
'

+

 
" 
" 

417
8

3
91:



 
0

'
0
# 

'


##'



=
< !
"'

8=<":
 (
! 
!



 

7
8

3
9:



<




 +



=<"
 


111.




*)  

2  . 0 (


'


# 
'

<"
+
  ! 

##'




# 



 
;

5=0
8;'  ':



#'



& 

'
!


 # 9

"$
>

..46


*0;
! '

9

<"
+
! 

6
0
# 
!


' 
)
+


 
+




3
) ''
# (
 

 +


' 
  9
 #
-.


!

 .46(
.
 
.46
 #  )'



# 


'

'





   
 

<"

+
0
# 


'






 
'




'
4
!


 # 

<"
+
 

+'(

!
''
   
)

7
0
# 
 

'9  ' 

+




# 















11
! '




 +




< 



117
0

 '
!
'





#  )



 ,'
# (


>!)(



(

#' 


'9  '
!



!
 
!


! 





 # 







141
 


+ 




17 0
#
'


 '

#)

 

 
'

+


<"

+

'

+

 




< 
 
 '
 
 

!
# 
  (



#)


# 
'


<




 


< !
"'


&)(

#

 

 



'

1.


 

 '
? ;#! 
 
&


# 
8%
"'':(

(
 #

' +

<"5=<"
!
)
 +



!'

 '

 











 $ 


'




') 

 

+
 


 + 5

(




 


#'

 '
'
2
 

#









 ') 
(

#' 






## 

 @ 

+
<"


!'


# 


 
#


 


 


 
! 




!
+



<"
A(




  
 '  


# (
) 
 '



# 



  
 


' +
!


#
 






141

!''



+ B




17
#  


(

# 
 '
 

#

 



8

3
9.:



6161(
 !

.111
0 (
 
' 

@
  
#(

 


# 
!

  

+ )

+
 

@
##



# '


+


17(





#

+


17
#


 " 
;

5>%(

"$




4 >)

+

' 


'


#
 

#

+
  
!


 
'


 (


# ''
+

 


# '






2


 
 
# 



+ 
)









17 ! '





# 








141 -'(
' 
78 :


)

 
8

3
9:


''!

 

The reservation of posts for reserved categories is applicable for candidates of Punjab Domicile only. Candidates are required to produce proof in this regard at the time of document checking." 6
       

        !" #$%% 


 / 
decided on 01.10.2025, 

" '
!




'


!

#
!



 '

+

C ( >  '
 (
! 
!

#


 ! '

(
'  
 
<"
+






2

 

!''(
  


# 
!


 9


 
>  '

 
>'

+


# 






##'

 



)

D< !
"'

(B

# 
!



  








!
 






>  '
 
0 ') 
#

# 
'!

"12.2.

Notifying a community as 'backward' would inherently be contingent on their history in a specific geographical area. Such determination is not made merely on the abstract idea of the identity of a community but honours its struggles by acknowledging the demonstrable evidence of disadvantage. It is not necessary that the same community faces identical hindrances all across the nation, as such, it would be unwise to understand this facet of the constitution as an attempt to provide blanket reservation. In fact, the very spirit behind the concept of affirmative action would be defeated if the same is done in a fashion that devoid of context and nuance.

12.3.

Inspiration can also be taken from the judgment passed by a Constitution Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in &'() *)&%%+,-,!!.,+ wherein it was specifically held that the reservations made in lieu of Article 16(4) of the Constitution of India, shall be subject to the geographical limits of the State where a certain caste is notified in this context. Speaking through Justice Ranjan Gogoi, the following was opined:

"2. In State of Uttaranchal v. Sandeep Kumar Singh and others, (2010) 12 SCC 794 [Civil Appeal No.4494 of 2006) the following question arose for consideration of this Court : "Whether a person belonging to a Scheduled Caste in relation to a particular State would be entitled or not, to the benefits or concessions allowed to Scheduled Caste candidate in the matter of employment, in any other State?" xxx xxx xxx

34. It is an unquestionable principle of interpretation that interrelated statutory as well as constitutional provisions have to be harmoniously construed and understood so as to avoid making any provision nugatory and redundant. If the list of Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes in the Presidential Orders under Article 341/342 is subject to alteration only by laws made by Parliament, operation of the lists of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes beyond the classes or categories enumerated under the Presidential Order for a particular State/Union Territory by exercise of the enabling power vested by Article 16(4) would have the obvious effect of circumventing the specific constitutional provisions in Articles 341/342. In this regard, it must also be noted that the power under Article 16(4) is not only capable of being exercised by a legislative provision/enactment but also by an Executive Order issued under Article 166 of the Constitution.  ))/0/11 1 )1$  %%)'" % 1),2

 

  ))"%)1)1' 0  1% )%  !31% )%     $%    

%)%0"1 )34   ''"1)0%% If in the opinion of a State it is necessary to extend the benefit of reservation to a class/category of Scheduled Castes/ Scheduled Tribes beyond those specified in the Lists for that particular State, constitutional discipline would require the State to make its views in the matter prevail with the central authority so as to enable an appropriate parliamentary exercise to be made by an amendment of the Lists of Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes for that particular State. Unilateral action by States on the touchstone of Article 16(4) of the Constitution could be a possible trigger point of constitutional anarchy and therefore must be held to be impermissible under the Constitution.

xxx xxx xxx

61. Accordingly, we answer the question referred in terms of the views expressed in para 34 of this opinion. We further hold that so far as the National Capital Territory of Delhi is concerned the pan India Reservation Rule in force is in accord with the constitutional scheme relating to services under the Union and the States/Union Territories."

13.

The issue of portability of caste or community based reservations arises when domicile is confused with ethnicity. The state of origin of a person is not ascertained with respect the place of his birth but has to be defined in terms of permanent abode of his parents at the time of issuance of the relevant notification. The constitutional philosophy acknowledges that the idea of 'backwardness' is contextual and territorial. While an individual can migrate to another area, however, the socioEeconomic disadvantages faced by a community residing in a particular geographical area historically do not migrate with him. Thus, the benefits of reservation are permanently rooted in one's ethnicity that denotes a shared culture and history. Allowing an approach where reservation is made portable across states would be violative of the principle of equitable distribution of resources as envisaged by the Constitution of India as it would amount to denial of benefits to those disadvantaged groups that they were orignially intended for."

0
+ 
#

 " !
'


#'

  )

< 



"

# 5.+2.5++6 '
D 

   !"#$%%7 decided on 14.11.2025, !

#

+
+
? 
#
&  (

''!

+
!

)

 

 

7. The Learned Single Judge relied upon various judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the notifications issued by the State to determine the eligibility of the appellant. The impugned judgment shows that the appellant had submitted a selfEdeclaration stating that he has been a permanent resident of Punjab since his birth in 2000. Referring to the notification dated 03.09.1955 and the letter dated 25.11.2002 issued by the Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment, the Learned Single Judge held that, for casteEbased reservation, the place of permanent abode of the appellant's father at the time of the notification was decisive. It is noted that although the appellant's grandfather belonged to the erstwhile State of Punjab, his father resided in Himachal Pradesh after the reorganization of 1966. The father's migration to Punjab in 1999, therefore, does not alter the family's original state of origin.

8. A perusal of the impugned judgment further reveals that, as per the revenue record, the appellant's family owns ancestral property in Village Gondpur Banehra, which presently falls within District Una, Himachal Pradesh. This clearly establishes Himachal Pradesh as the appellant's state of origin. As rightly observed, the date of migration to another State is irrelevant for determining one's state of origin8' 11 0$)7''"1)0'949 1%$)1 0 :

)1

 ,;;; )%""0) 00 %) $' 1 )/0$10%" 8#

:

 )

+


 




 (

<


 !
 +




< !
"'






) 


15.11
  (


 



#)


# 
 




#








' 

0
 '
  
#) 


# 



+ 



8

3
9.:
! 
!


''




6161
A(



!

' 


  
 ' (







# 













141(


''+


(
! '

!
117


  
'9 ' 
>!)(
 
' 



+ 


# 












17(

!




+





' 
  (
 #
 '










!

#

# '



3
9(
! 
 
 '



# '


##


+ 


# 

17(
)'



#  
)
 
 

!





+ 
!











15.11
 



)
 < !
"'

 




2  

 (

 

# ''


 '


# 
 )




 '

'


 




< !
"'



 

 1 2
 

 +



+

+
 



 # 
!'
 

 

+




 )

+
  '

+


<"
+(

'






0 (


"
 




### 


) 




   

+'(

# 
#






+


'' 
##'

:(

 (
''
'




# 


 %    $$  $ 0,** ,
#

+5  E 5- ,
#' E 5-