Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 2182 (RAJ)

Jyote Choubisa v. Raj. Public Service Commission

2018-11-02

DINESH MEHTA

body2018
JUDGMENT Dinesh Mehta, J. - Counsel for the parties agree that the controversy involved in this writ petition is covered by judgment of this Court in the case of Smt. Twarita Gehlot vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.: SBCW No.15540/2017 , decided on 14.12.2017 and, therefore, the present writ petition may be decided in terms of the said judgment. In the case of Smt. Twarita Gehlot (supra), it was laid down as under:- "After hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing precedent laws, this Court is of the opinion that time and again the precedent law has settled the issue that after marriage a woman acquires the domicile of the place of her husband and, therefore, she has to be treated for all practical purposes a citizen of that particular region. The petitioners who are married ladies and apparently from the same caste as that of their husband have come to the TSP area concern on account of their marriage and, therefore, they have to be treated as a part of the family and they too need to be extended all benefits that are available to the residents of those TSP area. The factum of marriage as well as the factum of petitioners having bonafide residence certificate and special bonafide residence certificate is not denied by the respondents. The said certificates are on account of husband's place of residence, rather then, that of parents. In an institution of marriage any certificate of a woman, may that be, election voter ID card, passport, ration card, aadhar card, bank details or any other educational certificates or employment certificate etc., includes address of husband for all practical purposes. Law itself permits such address as the permanent address for all future legal and financial transactions, therefore, in view of the above, this Court after looking into the complete precedent laws as well as arguments made by learned counsel for the parties finds that the petitioners deprivation on account of technicality of circular dated 4.7.2016 is not appropriate as the circular dated 4.7.2017 does not at all deal with the conditions post-matrimony. The validity of circular has not been gone into as the circular is not under challenge. The condition of matrimony is not dealt with in the circular dated 4.7.2016. Ours is one country and one constitution. The validity of circular has not been gone into as the circular is not under challenge. The condition of matrimony is not dealt with in the circular dated 4.7.2016. Ours is one country and one constitution. Citizenship as per the Constitution is one and, therefore, matrimony cannot be a detrimental factor to a lady only on account that she has changed area and has shifted from her parental family to her matrimonial home. The purpose of single citizenship of the country is same and cannot be taken away by the respondents on mere technicality. Precedent law is almost one sided as the Hon'ble Court has time and again held that the matrimony shall entitle the petitioner to all the benefits arising from the region. Averments made by counsel for the respondents cannot be accepted in the present situation as if the technicality of the circular dated 4.7.2016 is allowed, then that shall cause serious prejudice to a lady depriving her of the benefit being extended to a particular region. The lady has also shifted to such permanent home on account of marriage and would be having the same handicap which all other residents of the area shall be suffering. Such privilege based on region cannot be discriminated on any count or any legal proposition whatsoever. In light of the aforesaid observations, the writ petition is allowed. The respondents are directed to treat the petitioners as the residents of TSP area and accord them benefit of bonafide residence certificate and special bonafide residence certificate, which they had attained on account of her husband being a resident of the same TSP area. The respondents shall consider candidature of the petitioners for appointment as if she stands in merit relating to TSP in her own category and if she is otherwise eligible for appointment she shall be accorded the same within a period of two months from today." 2. In light of the aforesaid submissions, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner in light of the aforesaid precedent law of Smt. Twarita Gehlot (supra), within a period of 30 days from today by passing a speaking order. Necessary consideration shall made, which shall include issuance of necessary certificate and consideration on eligibility. Necessary consideration shall made, which shall include issuance of necessary certificate and consideration on eligibility. It is made clear that until such final decision is taken by the respondents in accordance with the aforesaid order, the petitioner shall be permitted to continue to participate in the selection process subject to the final decision taken by the respondents.