JUDGMENT Heard Sri Sharad Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri B.D. Kandpal, learned counsel for respondent no.1 and Sri P.C. Bisht, learned counsel for respondent no.2. 2. By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has sought writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent no.1 to forward the name of the petitioner who is a selected candidate to respondent no.2 so that the further steps for issuance of appointment letter may be proceeded with. 3. Brief facts of the case, as narrated in the writ petition, are that the petitioner in response to the advertisement dated 26.02.2006 published in Amar Ujala, submitted application for her candidature for the post of Veterinary Medical Officer. According to the petitioner, she fulfilled all the qualifications and she was allotted Roll No. 232. She participated in the interview which was held on 16.5.2007. After the selection process was over, as per the result dated 18.5.2007 declared by the respondent no. 1, as many as 72 candidates were selected and the petitioner stood at Serial No. 19 in the merit. However, against the name of the petitioner she was shown to have been selected “provisionally” (vkSicaf/kd). When the petitioner made queries as to the delay in issuance of her appointment letter she was not disclosed why she has been shown as “provisionally” selected. Hence the petition. 4. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondent no. 1, the candidature and selection of the petitioner for the post of Veterinary Medical Officer in Uttarakhand and Women Category is not denied. However, it is stated that the petitioner has shown her husband residing in Village Anandpur, Tehsil Kichha, District Udham Singh Nagar but the address of parental side of the petitioner was not disclosed in the domicile certificate. As such, since the petitioner failed to produce the domicile certificate in the new format required, she was shown to have been selected only provisionally. It is further stated in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondent no.1 that as per the government Order No. 2388/One-4/Sa.Pra./2001 dated 20.11.2001, a person gets domicile of State of Uttarakhand only when he/she is permanently residing in the State of Uttarakhand for more than 15 years. It is further stated in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondent no.1 that as per the government Order No. 2388/One-4/Sa.Pra./2001 dated 20.11.2001, a person gets domicile of State of Uttarakhand only when he/she is permanently residing in the State of Uttarakhand for more than 15 years. It is further stated in the counter affidavit filed by the answering respondent that to clarify the position a letter was sent to the government whether the woman who married a resident of Uttarakhand would be required to complete 15 years of residence after their marriage or not. The government has not taken any final decision in the matter. 5. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondent no. 2, the averments made in the writ petition are not specifically denied. However, it is stated in para-4 of the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the State Government that if the respondent no.1 (Public Service Commission) deletes word “provisionally” against the name of the petitioner, the State Government has no objection in issuing the appointment letter. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner drew attention of this Court to the judgment and order passed by Division Bench of this Court on 16.12.2008 in Writ Petition No. 297 of 2008 (S/B) Jyoti Bala Vs. State of Uttarakhand & another 2009(1) UD1*, in which in a similar controversy this Court has held that since u/s 15 of The Indian Succession Act, 1925 domicile after marriage of a woman is that of her husband, and as such she is not required to complete 15 years of residence after her marriage to prove that she is domicile of place of her husband. We have gone through the judgment referred on behalf of the petitioner which appears to have been affirmed by the Apex Court vide its order dated 23.01.2009 passed in SLP (Civil) No. 580/2009, “State of Uttarakhand Vs. Jyoti Bala & another”, whereby the said SLP was dismissed. 7. Section 15 of The Indian Succession Act, 1925 reads as under:- “15. Domicile acquired by woman on marriage.- By marriage a woman acquired the domicile of her husband, if she had not the same domicile before.” 8. Section 16 of The Indian Succession Act, 1925 reads as under:- “16.-Wife’s domicile during marriage.-A wife’s domicile during her marriage follows the domicile of her husband. Exception. Domicile acquired by woman on marriage.- By marriage a woman acquired the domicile of her husband, if she had not the same domicile before.” 8. Section 16 of The Indian Succession Act, 1925 reads as under:- “16.-Wife’s domicile during marriage.-A wife’s domicile during her marriage follows the domicile of her husband. Exception. – The wife’s domicile no longer follows that of her husband if they are separated by the sentence of a competent Court, or if the husband is undergoing a sentence of transportation.” 9. It is nobody’s case that the petitioner is separated from her husband. It is also not disputed that the petitioner’s husband is a permanent resident of this State (State of Uttarakhand). Copy of domicile certificate of her husband issued in the year 2001 is annexed as Annexure-2 to the supplementary affidavit filed on behalf of the petitioner. The petitioner has also filed copy of her husband’s passport as Annexure-1 to the supplementary affidavit and Kisan Bahi of her father-in-law. 10. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after being satisfied as to the domicile of the petitioner after her marriage to a person who is domicile of State of Uttarakhand, this Court has no hesitation in allowing this writ petition. 11. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. The respondents are directed to take necessary steps for her appointment, treating the petitioner as domicile of State of Uttarakhand.