IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.3985 of 2010 Date of decision : December 13, 2010 Meenakshi Upman and others …Petitioners. Versus State of H.P. and others …Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surjit Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 Yes. For the Petitioners : Mr. Rakesh Jaswal, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. Ramesh Thakur, Assistant Advocate General. Surjit Singh, Judge(Oral) All the petitioners in this writ petition are the wards of ex-servicemen. There were some vacancies of Trained Graduate Teachers. Certain vacancies were reserved for ex-servicemen and in the event of ex- servicemen being not available, those posts were available to the dependent sons, daughters and wives of ex- servicemen, as per Government Rules and Instructions. 2. Petitioners’ names were forwarded by the Employment Exchanges against the posts reserved for wards of Ex-servicemen. Interview letters were issued to the petitioners, but when they appeared for interview they were not interviewed and their candidature was rejected, on the ground that they, being already married, were not dependents upon their fathers (ex-servicemen) and, hence, not eligible for the benefit of reservation. They have Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? …2… approached this Court, by means of the present writ petition, for issuance of a writ of mandamus to the respondents to interview them and if found eligible consider them for appointment. They have also challenged Government instructions that married daughters are not eligible for the posts reserved for wards of ex-servicemen. 3. In their reply, respondents, while traversing the averments of the petitioners, have stated that reservation is only for dependent sons, daughters and wives of ex- servicemen and married daughters, being not dependent, upon their fathers, but upon their husbands, are not eligible to be considered against the posts reserved for dependent wards of ex-servicemen. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners as also learned Assistant Advocate General and gone through the record. 5. It is not in dispute that the petitioners were married even before their names were sponsored by the Employment Exchanges concerned. Government Rules and Instructions admittedly speak of reservation for dependent wards of ex-servicemen. That means to be eligible in the category of ward of ex-serviceman, the candidate should be dependent upon ex-serviceman. A daughter, after marriage, ceases to be dependent upon her father. She becomes dependent upon her husband and in the event of death of husband upon her father-in-law or the estate of her husband. On account of cessation of the petitioners to be …3… dependent upon their fathers (ex-servicemen), they cease to be eligible for the posts reserved for dependent wards of ex-servicemen. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that one of the petitioners, namely Suman Rana, though married, has been thrown out of the matrimonial home and a petition for annulment of marriage, under Section 12 of the Hindu Marriage Act, has also been filed by her husband, on the ground that she is impotent. 7. Filing of petition for annulment of marriage does not put an end to the status of the petitioner as a married daughter of her father nor does she cease to be dependent upon her husband. Petition is still pending. She has the right to claim maintenance from her husband. During the pendency of the petition for annulment of marriage itself, she can apply for maintenance allowance, under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act and until orders for grant of maintenance are passed, on such application, petition for annulment of marriage cannot proceed further. 8. It is argued by the learned counsel for the petitioners that instructions are discriminatory, in the sense that they do not deprive the son to get benefit, even after marriage. Argument has been noticed only to be rejected. Instructions apply both to daughters and sons, in the same manner and to the same extent. Instructions do not say that they will not be applicable, if a daughter gets married. Instructions simply say that the benefit is available to the …4… dependent son, daughter or wife of an ex-serviceman. Moment the son, daughter or wife ceases to be dependent, benefit is not available. Whether son, daughter or wife ceases to be dependent, on account of marriage or any other reason, is of little significance. The question is that the son, daughter or wife should be dependent upon the ex- serviceman, on the date when he or she becomes a candidate for the post reserved for such son, daughter or wife. For the foregoing reasons, petition is dismissed. December 13, 2010(sd) ( Surjit Singh ), J