Honble MISRA, J. – The instant case is an appalling example of denial of equal opportunity of employment on the ground of domicile inspite of the fact that the candidate is qualified in all other respect regarding his qualification. (2). The salient facts of the case are that the petitioner is a bonofide resident of State of Rajasthan and was selected for Government of India Merit Scholarship for the year 1977 and was selected for Scindia School, Gwalior (M.P.) for the Secondary Education for the session commencing in July 1977. The petitioner thereafter passed out All India Secondary School Examination in March 1981 and then, All India Senior School Certificate Examination in March 1983 from Central Board of Education as a student of Scindia School, Fort, Gwalior, (M.P.). The peti- tioner thereafter, sought admission in Maharaja College, Jaipur, University of Rajasthan in Second Year T.D.C. (Science), but unfortunately, on account of family constraints he could not pursue his studies and obviously thereafter was on the lookout for an employment. (3). Accordingly, in response to an Advertisement of the Reserve Bank of India published in daily newspaper Rashtradoot, dated 15.10.84, inviting applications from non-graduates possessing minimum qualification of 10+2 Examination with 60% marks with the minimum speed of 40 words per minute in English Typing, petitioner applied for the said post. However, one of the stringent conditions appended in the Advertisement was to the effect that a candidate applying should possess 10+2 Examination from any University or Board of Rajasthan. It was further provided that in case a candidate belonging to Rajasthan, has passed the aforesaid qualifying examination from some Board outside Rajasthan, he should have passed at least the Secondary Examination from any University or Board in the State of Rajasthan. (4). The petitioner being a resident of State of Rajasthan, also applied for the post of English Typist in response to the aforesaid advertisement inviting applications. The petitioner was thereafter, required to take written test and after succeeding in the same, was required to appear in Typing Test which was to be held lateron for the purpose. The petitioner qualified in the typing test and was then required to appear for the interview on 29.1.85. The petitioner was thereafter, required to take written test and after succeeding in the same, was required to appear in Typing Test which was to be held lateron for the purpose. The petitioner qualified in the typing test and was then required to appear for the interview on 29.1.85. When he appeared before the Interview Board on 29.11.85, he was told by the Interview Board that he cannot be considered for appointment on the post of English Typist because in terms of the conditions of the Advertisement, he ought to have passed either of the qualifying Examinations from University of Rajasthan and since he has passed both the Examinations from Madh- ya Pradesh, he stands disqualified on this count. (5). The petitioner aggrieved with this arbitrary denial for appointment on the post of English Typist has approached this Court by preferring this writ petition in the year 1986 and on 12.3.1986 a show cause notice was issued to the respondent and thereafter, on 9.7.86 a direction to the respondent was given to keep one seat of English Typist vacant and the writ petition was thus admitted. (6). The principal question therefore, which requires consideration is whether the action of the respondent can be held to be valid and whether the same should not be declared outright arbitrary, unreasonable as it runs counter to the spirit of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. It is rather unfortunate that a candidate who although hails from Rajasthan and was awarded a National Scholarship due to which he was admitted to Scindia School, Gwalior at Madhya Pradesh is disqualified for the post on the ground that he has passed Secondary and Senior Secondary from a State other than Rajasthan. It has therefore, been rightly submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that denial to the petitioner the post of English Typist by the respondent only on the ground that he had not passed his Secondary or Higher Secondary Examination from the State of Rajasthan, is in clear violation of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and the same may be struck down as illegal and invalid. In support of his contention, he has also relied on a decision of this Court in the matter of Nandkishore Dubey vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (1). In support of his contention, he has also relied on a decision of this Court in the matter of Nandkishore Dubey vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (1). The said judgment has been delivered relying on the judgment of the Apex Court reported in A.I.R. 1980 (S.C.) 1230 (2). In the said case, this Court has an occasion to examine the question regarding denial of employment on the ground that a candidate who had not passed the examination from a particular State whether should be held eligible for consideration for the post applied. The relevant condition in the advertisement to this effect was struck down as illegal. It is no doubt true that the condition to pass out the qualifying examination only from the State of Rajasthan is a condition which denies equal opportunity of employment to a candidate only on the ground of place of passing out the qualifying examination & hence runs counter to the provisions of Article 14 and 15 of the Constitution of India which is also embodied in the preamble to the Constitution wherein it has been clearly laid down that the State shall not deny any person equality before the law or the equal protection of the laws within the territory of India on the grounds only of religion, race, caste, sex, place of birth or any of them and it further provides equality of opportunity in the matter of public employment and also provides discretion on the ground of place of residence apart from other considerations like religion, race, caste, sex etc. Therefore, the denial to the petitioner, the post of English Typist only on the ground that the petitioner has not passed out his Secondary or Higher Secondary Examination from a particular State, is clearly a negation of his constitutional right which has been vested in the citizens of this country. (7). The condition of eligibility in the instant case therefore, strikes at the very root of one of the fundamental rights incorporated in the Constitution against discrimination. This view is certainly not a departure from the view taken by the Apex Court as also this Court in matters of employment. The same view has been reiterated in the matter of Charles K. Sakaria vs.C. Mathews case (3), in which this question was examined by the learned Judges of the Supreme Court. This view is certainly not a departure from the view taken by the Apex Court as also this Court in matters of employment. The same view has been reiterated in the matter of Charles K. Sakaria vs.C. Mathews case (3), in which this question was examined by the learned Judges of the Supreme Court. It will be perhaps relevant to state that the aforesaid matter related to admission in a Medical College a condition was imposed that the candidates seeking admission must have been Graduates from any University in Kerala. The said condition had been struck down as invalid holding that the same runs counter to the constitutional rights. The facts of the instant case in no manner are different from the facts of the case as stated hereinabove, Hence, the petitioner inspite of his having meritorious qualifications and having passed out the qualifying tests, could not have been denied appointment only on the ground that he had not passed out his Secondary or Higher Secondary Examination from the State of Rajasthan. (8). Consequently, the respondent is directed to consider the candidature of the petitioner and issue an order of his appointment on the post of English Typist which was kept vacant for him under the orders of this Court, since there is no jus- tification for denial of the same on the basis of the condition which time and again has been held to be ultravires of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. (9). The writ petition is, therefore, allowed, but the parties are left to bear their own costs.