MADAN, J. - (1.) THIS special appeal is directed against the judgment dated 22. 4. 99 passed by the learned Single Judge whereby writ petition filed by the respondent has been allowed.
(2.) THE facts leading to this appeal are that the appellants (State and its department of medical & health services) invited applications for training of Lady Health Worker Course for the year 1998 requiring the applicants to also submit proof of bonafide resident certificate of Rajasthan and with reference thereto, the present respondent (petitioner in writ petition-for short `writ petitioner') applied for such training course and she was called for interview on 22. 12. 97 but was not interviewed on the pretext of lacking domicile of Rajasthan. Against this refusal, the writ petitioner made representation stating therein that since she married with Sanwal Ram Diyma r/o village Ram Chandrapura of Alwar district on 13. 5. 1989 and she produced residence certificate (Ann. 2 ). It is the case of the writ petitioner that she was deprived of admission because the bonafide resident certificate cannot be accepted, whereas after her marriage she was living with her husband who was bonafide resident and domicile of Rajasthan, she had also acquired domicileship of Rajasthan by virtue of her marriage, and on these assertions she filed writ petition before this Court and wherein after notice to the State and its department of Medical, reply to the petition was filed by the State. THE learned Single Judge after hearing both the parties by his judgment allowed the writ petition of the respondent with costs of Rs. 2,000/ -. Hence this special appeal. Reiterating the contentions urged before the learned Single Judge so also in the reply to the writ petition, Shri Sanjay Tyagi learned counsel for the appellant State contended that since the petitioner was a domicile of State of Haryana and not of Rajasthan, it makes no difference that she had married in Rajasthan so she became the domicile of the place where her husband resides, inasmuch as certificate produ- ced by her merely testifies her placing of living and not domicile and that apart there is difference between resident and domicile. Hence Shri Tyagi contended that the learned Single Judge has wrongly drawn the inference that by virtue of her marriage in Rajasthan she has acquired bonafide residentship or domicileship of Rajasthan and thereby was entitled to qualify for the course in question. Much stress was also laid that the learned Single Judge failed to distinguish between the residence certificate (which the petitioner produced) and the bonafide resident certificate. According to Shri Tyagi, residence certificate produced by the petitioner is only with regard to resi- dential position of candidate while bonafide resident certificate is relating to original place of living of a candidate, whereas the admission to the course in question was only for those candidates having been bonafide residents of State of Rajasthan, and since the petitioner was not bonafide resident of Rajasthan and was merely residing in Rajasthan after her marriage, she could not be termed as domicile of Rajasthan. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned judgment of the learned Single Judge, prima facie we do not find any merit in any of the contentions urged on behalf of the State. The conclusions drawn by the learned Single Judge that though the petitioner originally belonged to Haryana but since she married to a domicile resident of Rajasthan, as per our Indian culture the wife is considered to be the domicile of the area where she is married any stays with her husband, are perfectly legal and deserves to be confirmed. Similarly certificate of residence is issued to a married woman in respect of the place where her husband is staying or residing alongwith her, and that being so, such a married woman is considered as a domicile of her husband. Obviously because it becomes impossible for the wife to acquire during the subsistence of the marriage a different domicile from that of her husband. That being so, the domicile of the writ petitioner cannot be any other than the domicile of her husband i. e. Rajasthan. In our view, the appellant State has illegally deprived of the petitioner by refusing her from interviewing for the course in question on the ground of lacking of bonafide resident or domicile of Rajasthan, and the action on the part of the State appellant is totally perverse and smacks of arbitrariness and therefore, the learned Single Judge has rightly quashed the impugned action of the State by observing that it would be appropriate for the State to make amends in admitting the petitioner if not for the session in question i. e. year 1998 but in the ensuing session of 1999 as she had already lost one year. Our view is fortified from the decision of this Court in Chistopher Andrew vs. Neelakantan (1), wherein this Court observed that a woman on her marriage, whatever her domicile of her origin might have been, acquires the domicile of her husband. It seems as if a married woman is under a sort of a disability in the matter of domicile, and the law imputes a domicile to a women on her marriage and she automatically acquires the domicile of her husband. As regards preliminary objection raised by the appellant State as to the maintainability of writ petition because of non- impleadment of selected candidates for the course in question, we are of the view that since the petitioner has not claimed any relief against those selected candidates nor has sought relief against the advertisement for the course in question, inasmuch as the learned Single Judge has not granted any other relief which causes prejudice against them, therefore, such objections has no relevance and are not sustainable in the facts and circumstances of the case.
(3.) RESULTANTLY this special appeal fails and hereby dismissed with no order as to costs in this appeal. The impugned judgment stands affirmed. The State appellant is directed to comply with judgment of the learned Single Judge in letter and spirit. .;