JUDGMENT: RAY, J. (ORAL) (1.) Heard the learned Advocates appearing for the parties. (2.) Challenging the judgment and order dated 30th July, 2007 passed in W.P. No. 2076 (W) of 2007 this appeal has been preferred by writ petitioner/appellant whereby and whereunder the learned trial Judge rejected the writ application challenging the selection of a candidate for the post of "Auxiliary Nurse-cum-Midwife". (3.) The writ application was moved by an unsuccessful candidate assailing such selection on the ground that the selectee did not qualify the eligibility criteria of permanent residency of the area wherein the Health Sub-Centre was located. In the writ application, it was the case of the writ petitioner that for a vacancy of the said post in Gangapur Sub-Centre the selectee claiming her permanent resident at Village Shibnagar under Police Station-Pathar Pratima in the District of 24-Parganas (South) applied soon after her marriage. The marriage held on 19th October, 2006 and she applied thereafter for the post on 24th November, 2006 disclosing her permanent residency as husbands house. In the appeal it has been contended before us that the appellant/writ petitioner though she is also a housewife, she is a resident of her matrimonial home for the last ten years which is within the area jurisdiction of the concerned post. As such, she was eligible to be appointed in view of the special fact that in the advertisement permanent residency in the locality was fixed as eligibility criteria. (4.) Learned trial Judge dismissed the writ application on the ground that as per Hindu Customs prevalent in the Society after marriage the wifes permanent residence changes from paternal house to matrimonial house. The impugned judgment of the learned trial Judge reads such: - "30.7.2007 -The petitioner has questioned the selection of the private respondent for appointment to the post of Auxiliary Nurse- cum-Midwife on the ground that she does not meet the eligibility criteria. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has invited the attention of this Court to the recruitment notice which contains a stipulation that a prospective applicant, inter alia, must be a permanent resident of the area wherein the Health Sub-Centre is located for which she wants her candidature to be considered. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has invited the attention of this Court to the recruitment notice which contains a stipulation that a prospective applicant, inter alia, must be a permanent resident of the area wherein the Health Sub-Centre is located for which she wants her candidature to be considered. It is his contention that the private respondent had applied for appointment in Gangapur Sub-Centre immediately after her marriage on 19th October, 2006 with a gentleman residing within the area in which Gangapur Sub-Centre is located and therefore, she does meet the eligibility criterion of having a permanent residence within such area. The application filed by the private respondent for appointment has been produced in Court by learned Counsel for the, State in terms of the earlier direction. It appears that the private respondent had indicated in the application that she is a permanent resident of Village-Shibnagar Post Office-Banashyamnagar, Police Station- Pathar Pratima in the District of 24-Parganas (South) which is the same as that of the petitioner. Since the private respondent has been residing in the residence of her husband which becomes her residence after marriage, the application made by the private respondent cannot be held invalid on the ground that she has been married only a few days prior to making the application. To put fetters on a lady citizens right to marry would clearly be against Article 21 of the Constitution of India for each and every lady citizen of the country has the right to get married and to reside along with her husband in his residential house. Emphasis laid by learned Counsel on the word "permanent" cannot come to his aid for apart from meaning "lasting for a long time", it also means "for all time in the future". According to Hindu social customs and rites, a married lady is supposed to live with her husband for all time in the future. In view thereof, there has been no illegality either on the part of the private respondent to indicate her husbands residence as her permanent home as well as her selection in the post of Auxiliary Nursing-cum-Midwife by the Selection Committee in terms of the applicable rules. In view thereof, there has been no illegality either on the part of the private respondent to indicate her husbands residence as her permanent home as well as her selection in the post of Auxiliary Nursing-cum-Midwife by the Selection Committee in terms of the applicable rules. There is no merit in the writ petition and the same stands dismissed without any order for costs......." (5.) Having regard to the rival contention of the parties, the only question involved herein for our decision as to whether on 19th October, 2006 after completion of the marriage the selectee became the permanent resident of the area wherein her matrimonial house is situated. The learned trial Judge answered the point by mentioning only the Hindu Customs to identify the residency issue. In the writ application, there is no allegation that the husband was living in his father-in-laws house after marriage with his wife or in any other place outside the area jurisdiction fixed for the said post. But on the contrary it is an admitted fact in the writ application that after marriage the selectee wife is staying with her husband in her matrimonial house, which is situated within the operating area wherein the Health Sub-Centre is located. The only point raised that there was no change of address in the ration card of the selectee changing permanent residency and also no change in the address of voter identity card. It appears from the record that after filing her application the selectee submitted xerox copy of the ration card wherein the change of residential address was noted. The question is whether there was no change in the address in the voter identity card as well as ration card though has a relevancy to identify the permanent residency but it is not the sole factor to identify it as electorate identity card is corrected by an interval of long time gap before any election of Legislative Assembly or Parliament. The question is whether after the marriage the wifes residence would change automatically to the address wherein the husband is living will lead us an answer on that score. To identify the question we made a search of customary rites prevalent in the Hindu Society, an age-old civilization by considering the religious script on that issue. The question is whether after the marriage the wifes residence would change automatically to the address wherein the husband is living will lead us an answer on that score. To identify the question we made a search of customary rites prevalent in the Hindu Society, an age-old civilization by considering the religious script on that issue. It appears that Harita, an intellectual and literate personality who was well-versed with the Indian Culture in his Text has contended that "as soon as the girl is offered to the husband she becomes equal to her spouse in point of status and membership of the clan of her spouse and at that material moment the girl loses the membership of the clan of her parents and consequently her title also". The view of Harita was quoted in the Book titled as "Udvhatattva" by Raghunandan a book compiling Customary Rites prevalent at the material time. As per his saying it reads such:- "Pradananaiba kannyayang Barasya samyang jayate. Kannyadatu samyang nibatatai. Tadaning gotrapaharmah Harita, Sagotra varshata nari vivahat saptama pade. Potigotrana kartabya tasya pindotkakriya" ....................Udvhatattva of Raghunandan. (6.) The English translation reads such: -"The girl due to her marriage as soon as she moves seven steps she loses the membership of her clan and consequently the title of her parents. Religious rites on such girl after her demise and also during her lifetime should be performed quoting membership of the clan to which her husband belongs (that is Gotra of her husband)". (7.) The view of Harita was quoted by Raghunandan a Scholar, as already referred to. In the Book "Sarddhaviveka", the Brihaspati, the Author says: -"The girl loses the membership of the clan to which her parents belong as soon as her marriage is solemnised with her husband". (7.) The view of Harita was quoted by Raghunandan a Scholar, as already referred to. In the Book "Sarddhaviveka", the Brihaspati, the Author says: -"The girl loses the membership of the clan to which her parents belong as soon as her marriage is solemnised with her husband". (8.) Having regard to the aforesaid views of the different Authors, the Harita, the Raghunandan and the Brihaspati it is clear that as soon as the girl complete seven steps movement after marriage with the husband which is also a ritual requires to be performed in the Hindu Marriage, immediately from that moment she loses identity as was existing in pre-marriage stage with her fathers family including the residence and the Gotra that is the clan and she becomes a part and parcel of the Gotra that is clan of the husbands family and her identity is permanently attached with the husbands clan and family and permanent residency also is changed from paternal house to matrimonial house. (9.) Considering the authentic text as referred to, we are of the view that on 19th October, 2006 just after marriage the selectee had lost her membership of her clan that is Gotra of her parents and she became the member of the clan of her husband including the Gotra and the residency. Even in the matrimonial Law there is a provision for right of residence, food under the canopy of maintenance in the event there is a separation from the husband by the wife. (10.) Furthermore, the residency can be divided in two sub-heads, one is permanent and another is temporary. The meaning of the word "residence" is required to be answered in the angle of the statutory provision, if any and it is a mixed question of law and fact. The Supreme Court answered the meaning of the word "residence" in the case Jeewanti Pandey v. Kishan Chandra Pandey, reported in 1981 (4) SCC 517 while dealing with the statutory provision of Section 19(ii) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 in the following terms: - "In its ordinary sense "residence" is more or less of a permanent character. The expression "resides" means to make an abode for a considerable-time to dwell permanently or for a length of time; to have a settled abode for a time. It is the place where a person has fixed home or abode. The expression "resides" means to make an abode for a considerable-time to dwell permanently or for a length of time; to have a settled abode for a time. It is the place where a person has fixed home or abode. Where there is such fixed home or such abode at one place, his legal and actual residence is the same and he cannot be said to reside at any other place where he had gone on a casual or temporary visit. But if he has no established home, his actual and physical habitation is the place where he actually or personally resides". (11.) The said definition has been referred to in the case Bhagwan Dass and Anr. v. Kamal Abrol and Ors., reported in 2005 (11) SCC 66 , a judgment of 3-Judges Bench. The residency concept also has another dimension to identify its meaning in the angle of de facto and de jure concept. In Paragraph-13 of the said case Jeewanti Pandey (supra), the Apex Court distinguished the said two concepts by holding that the de facto residency means, the residing of a person actually in a particular point of time whereas de jure residence means, a legal residence where a person is residing in law, which may or may not be the actual residence or place where the person actually stays or resides. The Court discussed the issue in the way as an example that a person while holding property or land in a particular place or city or having ancestral root in the city may be residence to a particular place in the legal sense, but his actual residence will be a place where he is personally residing and coupled with the fact of animus manendi that is intention to stay for a considerable period. The de facto and de jure residency can be understood by an example. If a person places a residency certificate at a place A but actually for his living he stays at the place B, then de jure he can be said to be the resident of place B. In the case Union of India and Ors. v. Dudh Nath Prasad, reported in 2000 (2) SCC 20 the Apex Court held that the word "resides" should be interpreted in the context or the purpose of the statute in which the word "resides" was used. v. Dudh Nath Prasad, reported in 2000 (2) SCC 20 the Apex Court held that the word "resides" should be interpreted in the context or the purpose of the statute in which the word "resides" was used. It has been further held that a word should be read with the word "ordinarily". The word "ordinarily residing" in a particular place denotes the intention of stay at a place for a considerable period. The word "ordinarily resident" has been considered by the English Court in the case Cicutti v. Suftolk County Council, reported in 1980 (3) All England Reporter 689 in the following language "the word "ordinarily" is primarily directed not to duration but to perform. In this sense the question is not very much where the person is to be found ordinarily in the sense usually or habitually and with the same degree of continuity but whether the quality of residence ordinary and general rather than merely some special or limited purpose". The said view was considered by the Apex Court of India in the Constitution Bench judgment in the case Kuldip Nair v. Union of India and Ors., reported in 2006 (7) SCC 1 . As per definion of the word "residence" as given in Blacks Law Dictionary (Vlllth Edn.) it means "bodily present as an inhabitant in a given place". (12.) Having regard to the aforesaid definition and clarification of the word "residency", the "ordinarily resides" and the "permanent residency", we have to consider this issue placed before us. In the instant case, there is no statutory provision which would help us to define the word "permanent residency". Here only an advertisement was published by the Health and Family Welfare Department, State of West Bengal inviting names for appointment of candidates in the post of "Auxiliary Nurse-cum-Midwife" on contractual basis in the respective Health Sub-Centres situated within the different Panchayat areas as mentioned in the advertisement. The concerned post relates to Pathar Pratima Block area within the District of 24-Parganas (South). The qualification prescribed in the said advertisement along with the academic qualification, age etc. as specified. A condition prescribed that the candidate should be "permanently resident" of the concerned Sub-Centre area. The concerned Sub-Centre in this case is Gangapur Health Sub- Centre within the Block and Police Station - Pathar Pratima. The qualification prescribed in the said advertisement along with the academic qualification, age etc. as specified. A condition prescribed that the candidate should be "permanently resident" of the concerned Sub-Centre area. The concerned Sub-Centre in this case is Gangapur Health Sub- Centre within the Block and Police Station - Pathar Pratima. (13.) From the annexed document at page 171 of the paper book it appears that Banashyamnagar Gram Panchayat certified that the Village, Shibnagar wherein the selectee started to reside after her marriage and claimed her permanent residency therein, is situated within the area contoured for Gangapur Health Sub-Centre. (14.) Having regard to the aforesaid pleadings of the writ application, it appears that in Paragraph-8 the writ petitioner has admitted the permanent residency of the selectee in the concerned area with effect from 20th October, 2006 that is the date of registration of marriage. The relevant paragraph reads such: -"8. That on further enquiry your petitioner has come to know that the respondent No. 8 was not a permanent resident of the locality as required by the relevant recruitment rules. The respondent No. 8 is an outsider and she married one Sri Goutam Maity only on 19th October, 2005 and on and from the very next date i.e. 20th October, 2006 she started living in the concerned locality in her matrimonial home. The relevant of course contemplates a different eligibility test. In order to be eligible a candidate must be a permanent resident of the locality". (15.) The selectee was the respondent No. 8 in the writ application. It appears from page 42 of paper book that the ration card of selectee was transferred on 8th November, 2006 showing her address as husbands house, a permanent address, by changing it from earlier address of her parents house. (16.) Learned Advocate for the appellant referred the judgment Bhagwan Dass (supra) in support of the case of the appellant. That case is distinguishable on the factual matrix pleaded therein. Here there is an admission by the writ petitioner that respondent No.8 is a permanent resident of the concerned area after marriage. The only issue raised that duration of stay was short. That case is distinguishable on the factual matrix pleaded therein. Here there is an admission by the writ petitioner that respondent No.8 is a permanent resident of the concerned area after marriage. The only issue raised that duration of stay was short. The period of residence is not the determing factor to identify the permanent residency of a married woman who as per the Ancient Text written by Raghunandan, Harita and Brihaspati just after completion of ritual Saptapadi that is seven steps becomes the member of the husbands clan and her permanent residence changes automatically from that moment, already discussed. However, there is an exception when the husband lives in the wifes paternal house, but it requires a pleading by contending that the wife was not living in the husbands house after marriage. So, the point as raised by Mr. De, learned Senior Advocate referring the said judgment Bhagwan Dass (supra) has no relevancy in this case on the basis of the pleadings and in the angle of the pleadings of this case. (17.) Considering all the legal points settled on this issue and the factual matrix, we are of the view that as soon as the selectee got married, her residence was changed permanently to the husbands house in absence of any counter allegation that she was not staying permanently in her husbands house and on the contrary admission of the fact that after marriage, selectee was staying permanently therein that is in her husbands house. Hence, the selectee satisfied the condition of permanent residency, an eligibility criteria for appointment in the said post. Her selection cannot be said as on breach of eligibility criteria fixed by the advertisement. (18.) For that reasoning, we are confirming the judgment delivered by the learned trial Judge rejecting the writ application. The appeal stands dismissed as there is no merit. Sarkar, J.: I agree. S. B.