1 S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.6861/2007 Vandana Ninama v. The RPSC, Ajmer & Anr. Date of Order :: 23rd October, 2008 HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE GOVIND MATHUR Mr. P.R.Mehta, for the petitioner. Mr. N.M.Lodha, Additional Advocate General. Mr. Tarun Joshi ] Mr. Shyam Toshniwal] for the respondents. .... On qualifying the Primary and Upper Primary School Teachers' Competitive Examination, 2006 the petitioner was provisionally selected for appointment as Teacher Gr.III. The selection aforesaid came to be rejected by the Rajasthan Public Service Commission by alleging that the petitioner though is a member of Scheduled Tribes but is not a resident of triable sub plan area. By this petition for writ a challenge is given to the decision aforesaid. It is contended by counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is admittedly a member of Scheduled Tribes and is a resident of village Sagwa, Tehsil Kushalgarh in District Banswara. A domicile certificate in this regard was also issued by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Kushalgarh District Banswara, hence the respondent Commission erroneously rejected selection of the petitioner for appointment as Teacher Gr.III. 2 In reply to the writ petition it is stated by the respondents that though the petitioner is residing at village Sagwa in District Banswara but prior to her marriage she was residing at village Kakanwani District Jhabua (Madhya Pradesh) and, therefore, she could not treated as a resident of triable sub plan area and as such her selection was rightly cancelled. The respondents have not said anything in reply regarding domicile certificate placed on record by the petitioner wherein the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Kushalgarh certified that the petitioner is a bonafide resident of village Sagwa, Tehsil Kushalgarh, District Banswara. It is also not disputed by the respondents that the petitioner is a member of Scheduled Tribes and presently she is residing in District Banswara. Heard counsel for the parties. This Court in Asha Devi (Smt.) v. State of Rajasthan, reported in 2000 DNJ (Raj.) 181, while considering the issue regarding residence of a married woman, observed and held as follows:- “3.In reply to the legal notice in Annexure R.1 the respondents had taken a categorical stand that the petitioner after marrying with a resident of Rajasthan was staying with her husband, but the factum of marriage of the 3 petitioner ipso facto cannot be considered to be a certificate of domicile. It is further submitted that all seats have been filled-up and even though the petition is allowed, the petitioner will not get benefit at this stage. 4.In my opinion, the contention of the respondents cannot be sustained and is to be rejected. The writ petition deserves to be allowed. The petitioner who originally belongs to Haryana was married to a domicile resident of Rajasthan. As per Indian culture, it goes without saying that the wife is considered to be the domicile of the area where she is married and stays with her husband. The respondents had not applied their mind to this aspect and have mechanically rejected the application of the petitioner. The certificate of residence of a married woman to be a resident of Rajasthan where her husband is staying or residing is to be considered as a domicile certificate of such woman. It would be highly unjust to deprive the woman who marry in Rajasthan of her domicile status. The action of the respondents cannot be justified and is quashed.” In the instant matter too the petitioner though born in District Jhabua (Madhya Pradesh) but married to a resident of District Banswara and presently residing at village Sagwa in Banswara, therefore, she is to be treated as domicile of Rajasthan. Suffice it to mention that the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Kushalgarh also issued a 4 domicile certificate looking to present place of residence of the petitioner and location of her marital home. For the reasons stated above and in view of the judgment of this Court in the case of Asha Devi (Smt.) (supra), the petitioner is required to be treated as a resident of triable sub plan area. Accordingly, this petition for writ is allowed. The decision of the respondent Commission not to treat the petitioner a resident of triable sub plan area is declared illegal. The respondents are directed to consider candidature of the petitioner for the purpose of appointment to the post of Teacher Gr.III and in the event she stands in merit relating to triable sub plan area and is otherwise eligible, appointment be accorded to her within a period of three months from today. ( GOVIND MATHUR ),J. kkm/ps.