Nisha Patidar @APPELLANT@Hash State of Rajasthan & Ors.

Issue notice. Mr. Vikas Choudhary assistant to Mr.S.S. Ladrecha, AAG accepts notice on behalf of respondents.

Counsel for the parties agree that the controversy involved in this writ petition is covered by judgment of this Court in Smt. Twarita Gehlot Vs.

State of Rajasthan & Ors. (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.15540/2017 decided on 14.12.2017), relevant portion whereof reads as follows :

“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 facum 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. 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 previlage 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

todayâ€​.

In light of aforesaid submission, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents to issue necessary TSP Certificate in favour of

petitioner subject to final decision to be taken on the representation submitted by the petitioner and further her services shall not be discontinued by the

respondents till such consideration is completed. Necessary consideration of the representation of the petitioner is required to be made by the

respondents in light of precedent law of Twarita Gehlot (supra) within a period of 30 days from today. The consideration shall be subject to availability

of the vacancy.