Chandigarh, Oct. 3 -- The Punjab and Haryana high court (HC) has dismissed a plea from an Amritsar resident who had petitioned against decision of not allowing him to avail benefits under the backward class (BC) status despite him having roots in Punjab. "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 high court bench of justice HS Brar said while dismissing the plea from an engineer. The petition was from one Vinay Sahotra against the decision of the Punjab State Power Corporation Limited (PSPCL) whereby his claim to be considered in the backward class category for the recruitment of assistant engineer was declined in May 2025. He had submitted a self- declaration form that he belonged to the Jhinwar community recognised as backward class by a 1955 notification in Punjab. His grandfather belonged to part of Una district in Himachal Pradesh, which in 1966 was merged in Himachal Pradesh upon reorganisation. His father shifted to Punjab in 1991 and the petitioner was born in 1999 in Amritsar. However, his claim was rejected. The court noted that as per 2002 notification of the central government in order to ascertain eligibility of an applicant for a caste-based certificate, the place of permanent abode of their father at the time of the notification is to be looked at. While the grandfather of the petitioner was a resident to the erstwhile Punjab, his father resided in Himachal Pradesh since its creation in the year 1966. He only moved to Punjab in the year 1991, clearly connoting that he does not belong to Punjab originally, it added. The court noted that notifying a community as backward would inherently be contingent on their history in a specific geographical area. "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," the bench observed. "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 as it would amount to denial of benefits to those disadvantaged groups that they were originally intended for," it added. The court further clarified that the date of migration would also not be relevant to determine one's state of origin. "...if a person migrates to another state after the issuance of the presidential notification they would be considered to be a migrant therein. Both the original migrants as well as their progeny will be regarded as migrants and not be provided with benefits of reservation in the state of migration," it said, adding that since 1966 composite state of Punjab ceased to exist and permanent abode of his forefathers was placed under Himachal Pradesh....