ORDER : 1. The prayer of the petitioner is to appoint her on the post of Teacher Grade-III (Class VI to VIII) in the subject of Social Studies in pursuance to the advertisement dated 02.04.2012 by treating her under the OBC (Women) Category. 2. The petitioner being fully eligible and entitled applied through online in pursuance to the advertisement dated 02.04.2012 for the Hanumangarh District under OBC (Women) category in the subject of Social Studies. She appeared in the written examination. The result was declared and was published category-wise along with cut-off marks. The cut-off marks for OBC-Female (General) was 150.91. The petitioner too got 150.91 marks. Thus, she was provisionally declared eligible for the purpose of verification of the documents. The petitioner submitted all the original documents of the educational qualifications and domicile certificate but she was asked to submit Marriage Registration Certificate. Therefore, she submitted the requisite affidavit regarding marriage stating that she got married to one Shri Vijay Kumar resident of Haryana and was not a domicile of Rajasthan any more. Despite being qualified and eligible, the petitioner was not offered appointment on the ground that she is now a resident of Haryana. 3. Reply has been filed. 4. As per the reply and the arguments raised by the learned counsel for the respondents, the petitioner was treated in the General category in the light of the Clause 8 Sub Note 1 of the advertisement and therefore, she cannot avail the benefit of reserved Category. The petitioner has furnished the domicile of her being resident of Haryana and thus, she cannot get the benefit under the OBC (Women) Category in the State of Rajasthan. Learned counsel for the respondents has also placed reliance on the judgment rendered by this Court in the case of State of Rajasthan Vs. Asha Devi reported in 2001 (4) RLW (Raj.) 357. 5. In the said case, respondent Asha Devi had come to the Court challenging the action of the respondents in denying appointment to her on the ground that she was not a bonafide resident of Sate of Rajasthan as she was earlier residing in Haryana and had come to Rajasthan on account of marriage. In the said case, the stand of the State was opposite to the stand taken in the present case. In the said case, the stand of the State was opposite to the stand taken in the present case. She was accepted as a resident/domicile of State of Rajasthan in view of her having got married in the State of Rajasthan. In the said judgment, it is nowhere stated that she i.e. the appellant was not eligible to apply in the State of her origin. In the said judgment, no doubt, it is mentioned that “the domicile of the writ petitioner cannot be any other than the domicile of her husband”, however, while observing the same, the judgment rendered by the Larger Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Dr. Pradeep Jain and Ors. vs. Union of India (UOI) and Ors. reported in AIR 1984 SC 1420 was not brought to the notice of the Court and therefore, the same was not referred, wherein it was held in no uncertain terms that the Constitution of India recognises only one domicile namely domicile of India and that too only on two grounds, one is domicile of birth and second by domicile of choice. The Larger Bench of the Supreme Court issued a warning to the State Government prescribing domiciliary requirement for an admission as a dangerous trend and went on to say in para 10 as under: “10. Now it is clear on a reading of the Constitution that it recognises only one domicile namely, domicile in India. Article 5 of the Constitution is clear and explicit on this point and it refers only to one domicile, namely, "domicile in the territory of India." Moreover, it must be remembered that India is not a federal state in the traditional sense of that term. It is not a compact of sovereign states which have come together to form a federation by ceding a part of their sovereignty to the federal states. It has undoubtedly certain federal features but it is still not a federal state and it has only one citizenship, namely, the citizenship of India. It has also one single unified legal system which extends throughout the country. It is not possible to say that a distinct and separate system of law prevails in each State forming part of the Union of India. It has also one single unified legal system which extends throughout the country. It is not possible to say that a distinct and separate system of law prevails in each State forming part of the Union of India. The legal system which prevails through-out the territory of India is one single indivisible system with a single unified justicing system having the Supreme Court of India at the apex of the hierarchy, which lays down the law for the entire country. It is true that with respect to subjects set out in List II of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution, the States have the power to make laws and subject to the over-riding power of Parliament, the States can also make laws with respect to subjects enumerated in List III of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution, but the legal system under the rubric of which such laws are made by the States is a single legal system which may truly be described as the Indian Legal system. It would be absurd to suggest that the legal system varies from State to State or that the legal system of a State is different from the legal system of the Union of India; merely because with respect to the subjects within their legislative competence, the States have power to make laws. The concept of 'domicile' has no relevance to the applicability of municipal laws, whether made by the Union of India or by the States. It would not, therefore, in our opinion be right to say that a citizen of India is domiciled in one state or another forming part of the Union of India. The domicile which he has is only one domicile, namely, domicile in the territory of India. When a person who is permanently resident in one State goes to another State with intention to reside there permanently or indefinitely, his domicile does not undergo any change: he does not acquire a new domicile of choice. His domicile remains the same, namely, Indian domicile. We think it highly deterimentals to the concept of unity and integrity of India to think in terms of State domicile. His domicile remains the same, namely, Indian domicile. We think it highly deterimentals to the concept of unity and integrity of India to think in terms of State domicile. It is true and there we agree with the argument advanced on behalf of the State Governments, that the word 'domicile' in the Rules of some of the State Governments prescribing domicilary requirement for admission to medical colleges situate within their territories, is used not in its technical legal sense but in a popular sense as meaning residence and is intended to convey the idea of intention to reside permanently or indefinitely. That is, in fact the sense in which the word 'domicile' was understood by a five Judge Bench of this Court in D. P. Joshi's case (supra) while construing a Rule prescribing capitation fee for admission to a medical college in the State of Madhya Bharat and it was in the same sense that word 'domicile' was understood in Rule 3 of the Selection Rules made by the State of Mysore in Vasundra v. State of Mysore. We would also, therefore, interpret the word 'domicile' used in the Rules regulating admissions to medical colleges framed by some of the States in the same loose sense of permanent residence and not in the technical sense in which it is used in private international law. But even so we wish to warm against the use of the word 'domicile' with reference to States forming part of the Union of India, because it is a word which is likely to conjure up the notion of an independent State and encourage in a subtle and insidious manner the dormant sovereign impulses of different regions. We think it is dangerous to use a legal concept for conveying a sense different from that which is ordinarily associated with it as a result of legal usage over the years. When we use a word which has come to represent a concept or idea, for conveying a different concept or idea it is easy for the mind to slide into an assumption that the verbal identity is accompanied in all its sequences by identity of meaning. The concept of domicile if used for a purpose other than its legitimate purpose may give rise to lethal radiations which may in the long run tend to break up the unity and integrity of the country. The concept of domicile if used for a purpose other than its legitimate purpose may give rise to lethal radiations which may in the long run tend to break up the unity and integrity of the country. We would, therefore, strongly urge upon the State Governments to exercise this wrong use of the expression 'domicile' from the rules regulating admissions to their educational institutions and particularly medical colleges and to desist from introducing and maintaining domiciliary requirement as a condition of eligibility for such admissions. 6. In order to properly adjudicate the matter in hand, it would be appropriate to refer to the clarification to the Clause -8 of the advertisement, which reads as under : 8- vkj{k.k Li"Vhdj.k v½ fdlh oxZ ¼lkekU;@v0tk0@v0t0tk0@v0fi0o0 ,oa fo-fi-o- ¼ukWu Øhehys;j½½ dh ik= ,oa mi;qDr efgyk vH;FkhZ miyC/k ugha gksus ij ml in dks mlh oxZ ds iq:"k vH;fFkZ;ksa ls Hkjk tkosxkA vU; fiNM+k oxZ @ fo'ks"k fiNM+k oxZ dsVsxjh esa vkosnu djus okyh fookfgr efgyk vkosnd dks vius firk ds uke fuokl Lfkku ,oa vk; ds vk/kkj ij tkjh v0 fi0 oxZ dk uksu Øhfeys;j dk uohure izek.k i= izLrqr djuk gksxk] tks N% ekg ls iqjkuk ugha gks] rks gh vkj{k.k dk ykHk ns; gksxk] vU;Fkk ughaA ifr ds uke o vk; ds vk/kkj ij tkjh izek.k&i= ekU; ugha gksxkA 7. The clarification is crystal clear which specifically states that for the purpose of reservation under the OBC Category of a married woman, the OBC Certificate will be on the basis of the name and income of the father and not of the husband. The certificate produced by the petitioner is with the name of her father. It is not disputed that the certificate is genuine and is not cancelled till date. The said certificate meets the requirement as per the stipulation in the advertisement. The argument that the petitioner has got married and is a resident of Haryana and therefore, her certificate cannot be considered, has no merit inasmuch as the respondents have not been able to show any Rule, Regulation or Provision contrary to the stipulation in the advertisement. 8. The said certificate meets the requirement as per the stipulation in the advertisement. The argument that the petitioner has got married and is a resident of Haryana and therefore, her certificate cannot be considered, has no merit inasmuch as the respondents have not been able to show any Rule, Regulation or Provision contrary to the stipulation in the advertisement. 8. This fact is fortified by the Circular dated 06.08.1984, issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs clarifying that a person belonging to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes on migration from the state of his origin to another state will not lose his status as Scheduled Caste/scheduled Tribes from the state of his origin. The said provision reads as under : “The instructions issued in this Ministry’s letter of even number dated the 18-11-1982 will continue. It is however, clarified that the scheduled caste/scheduled Tribe person on migration from the state of his origin to another state will not lose his status as scheduled caste/scheduled Tribes/ from the state of his origin and not from the state where he has migrated. All competent authorities may be advised under intimation to this Ministry to issue the scheduled Cast/scheduled Tribe certificates on the revised form of certificate.” 9. In fact the stand of the respondents is contradictory to their own advertisement and circular. It is indeed shocking to think that a woman in the 21st Century will be deprived of her right to seek appointment in a State where she may have been born, studied and lived. With the amendment of the Hindu Succession Act, she is even entitled to equal right in the property of her father. To think that she can acquire and own property in State of Rajasthan but will loose the right to seek a job and is held not eligible under the category of OBC Female in spite of her being born in that family cannot be more derogatory and humiliating. It amounts to being called a stranger, an outsider in her own home State and country just because she has got married. 10. This Court in the case of Smt. Madhubala Vs. the State of Rajasthan & Ors. (SB Civil Writ Petition No.12153/2015) decided on 01.03.2016 allowed the writ petition in the similar set of circumstances by relying on the judgments rendered in the case of Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Ajmer Vs. 10. This Court in the case of Smt. Madhubala Vs. the State of Rajasthan & Ors. (SB Civil Writ Petition No.12153/2015) decided on 01.03.2016 allowed the writ petition in the similar set of circumstances by relying on the judgments rendered in the case of Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Ajmer Vs. Rekha Soni & Anr. (DB Civil Special Appeal(W) No.142/2009), Mrs. Sahendra Bai & Ors. Vs. RPSC & Anr. reported in 2008 (4) WLC (Raj.) 252 as well as in SB Civil Writ Petition Nos. 12148/2015 – Sushila & Ors. vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. and 12163/2015-Smt. Kamlesh Kumari vs. State of Rajasthan 7 Ors. by holding in para 14 and 15 as under : “14. In S.B. Civil Writ Petitions Nos. 12148/2015-Sushila & Ors. vs. State of Rajasthan 7 Ors. and 12163/2015-Smt. Kamlesh Kumari v. State of Rajasthan & Ors., the petitioners have relied upon Caste Certificate as issued by the State of Haryana, which would necessarily mean that only the said State can verify as far as the parentage and caste of petitioner is concerned and it is not possible for the State of Rajasthan to do so. The State of Rajasthan had issued them a Domicile Certificates which would mean that they are residents of Rajasthan and as has been stated above, the caste is by birth and thus they would have been entitled for consideration as a reserved category candidates if such category is considered to be reserved in the State of Rajasthan. 15. Therefore, this Court is of the opinion that once the documents have been furnished by a candidate was issued by a State reflecting the name of her father which would have been prior to her marriage, supported by a certificate issued by the State of Rajasthan where the petitioner resided after marriage, these certificates should have been taken into account and there was no occasion for treating the candidatures of the petitioners in the General Category. In case the respondents have doubts and are so inclined, they could get the certificates verified themselves as has been held in the case Mrs. Sahendra Bai & ors. (supra). 11. In case the respondents have doubts and are so inclined, they could get the certificates verified themselves as has been held in the case Mrs. Sahendra Bai & ors. (supra). 11. In the present case, the petitioner has produced the certificate belonging to the said category issued by the appropriate authority of the State of Rajasthan in terms of the requirement of the advertisement and as per the clarification itself in the said advertisement i.e. with the name of her father. 12. In view of the above, the present writ petition is allowed and the respondents are directed to consider the certificate of the petitioner for the purpose of appointment under the OBC (Women) Category, if she is otherwise eligible. The needful be done within one month from today.