MAJMUDAR, J. - (1.) SINCE a common point is involved in all these writ petitions, the same are being disposed of by this common judgment. Whether a married woman, who belonged to a State other than the State of Rajasthan prior to her marriage and who was getting the benefit of reservation in that State, is entitled to get the benefit of reservation under the Mahila OBC or other reserved category for the purpose of getting employment in the State of Rajasthan, is the question which is raised in all these writ petitions. In all these writ petitions, the respective petitioners originally belonged to a State other than the State of Rajasthan before their marriage and after marriage, they are residing in the State of Rajasthan as husband of each of the petitioner is staying in Rajasthan. It is not in dispute that the husband of each of the petitioners belongs to OBC or other reserved category and by virtue of their marriage, the petitioners have put up their claim for getting reservation for the purpose of getting employment.
(2.) SINCE in all these writ petitions, a common question is raised, therefore, it is not necessary to examine facts of each of the case of this bunch of writ petitions. For ready reference, facts of the first writ petition of the bunch, namely S. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3170/2005 are being taken into consideration. The petitioner of the said writ petition was residing in the State of Haryana before her marriage. After her marriage, she is now residing at Village Chandpur, Tehsil Mundawar, District Alwar. She has passed her B. A. and B. Ed. Examination from the University of Rajasthan. It is the case of the said petitioner that she is now permanently residing in the State of Rajasthan by virtue of her marriage and even competent authority of the State of Rajasthan has issued Residence Certificate and Caste Certificate to her and the Election Commission also has issued her Voter Identity Card. The petitioner has applied for the post of Teacher Grade-III in the category of Mahila OBC candidate in response to the advertisement dated 2. 6. 2004. So far as other petitioners are concerned, each of them was residing in a State other than the State of Rajasthan prior to her marriage and after her marriage now each of them is residing in the State of Rajasthan and in all such cases caste certificates etc. have been issued to each of the petitioners by the competent authorities of the State. The Rajasthan Public Service Commission (for short `rpsc') issued the aforesaid advertisement for the purpose of recruitment on the posts of Teacher Grade-III. As per clause (4) of the notes in the said advertisement, the posts reserved for the SC/st/obc candidates were to be filled in by the candidates belonging to the respective categories who are permanent residents of the State of Rajasthan and if a candidate is not the permanent resident of the State of Rajasthan, his/her candidature was to be considered in the General category. The petitioner of S. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3170/2005 applied in response to the said advertisement dated 2. 6. 2004, but her name has not been recommended for appointment on the ground that she has born in the State of Haryana and thereby she is not a permanent resident of the State of Rajasthan. Similar are the facts of other writ petitions of this bunch, where the petitioners are married ladies, whose cases have not been considered for appointment in the reserved category of Mahila OBC etc. on the ground that each of them was born in a State other than the State of Rajasthan and therefore, they cannot be treated as permanent residents of the State of Rajasthan. By filing these writ petitions, the petitioners have challenged the said action of the RPSC in not considering their candidature in the reserved category and considering their case in General category on the ground that even if a lady has married to a husband belonging to a reserved category, such lady cannot get the benefit of reservation in the said category by virtue of her marriage to a person belonging to a reserved category. In some of the cases, the facts are slightly different. For instance, in one of the writ petition being S. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6387/2007, the petitioner has been given OBC certificate by the State of Madhya Pradesh. The said candidate belongs to Dhobi community, which is treated to be in the category of OBC in the State of Madhya Pradesh, whereas in State of Rajasthan, the Dhobi community is considered as Scheduled Caste. In the said petition, the petitioner has annexed the certificate issued by the State of Rajasthan showing her to be in Scheduled Caste category. Similarly in S. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5697/2005, the petitioner was getting the benefit of OBC in the State of Madhya Pradesh as she belongs to Meena community, which is treated as Scheduled Tribe in the State of Rajasthan. It is the contention of the said petitioner that since before marriage she was belonging to Meena community and she has also married in Meena community, she should be considered as a Scheduled Tribe candidate as now she is permanent resident of the State of Rajasthan and now she cannot be considered as a resident of State of Madhya Pradesh in any manner and for the Scheduled Tribe category, there is no question creamylayer.
(3.) I have heard learned counsels for the parties and gone through the material available on record. The principal question which requires consideration in this bunch of writ petitions is whether the petitioners, who are married women, are entitled to get the benefit of reservation in the State of Rajasthan even though they have born in a State other than the State of Rajasthan and whether they can be denied the benefit of reservation in the State of Rajasthan even though the castes to which they belonged prior to their marriage were considered in reserved category in their parental States and the said castes are considered in reserved category in the State of Rajasthan also. Learned counsels for the petitioners have argued that the petitioners are entitled to get the benefit of reservation and such benefit cannot be denied to them on the ground that each of them was born and residing in a State other than the State of Rajasthan before her marriage and simply by virtue of their marriage such benefit is not available to them. On behalf of the petitioners it is argued that the action of the respondents in not considering the candidature of the petitioners in the reserved category is arbitrary, discriminatory and violative of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. Learned counsel Mr. Rajendra Soni appearing for some of the petitioners vehemently argued that all the petitioners can be said to be permanent residents of the State of Rajasthan by virtue of their marriage as it is a custom in India that a married woman is generally required to stay with her husband at the place of his residence and since all the petitioners are now permanently residing in the State of Rajasthan after their marriage, simply because they have born in a State other than the State of Rajasthan, it cannot be said that they are not the permanent residents of State of Rajasthan. He submitted that in many such cases, even in the Voters' List the names of the petitioners have been registered. He has also placed reliance on ration cards and other such documents in this behalf. It is also submitted that in most of the cases, the petitioners were belonging to reserved categories in their parental State at the time of their birth and they have also married to persons belonging to reserved category in the State of Rajasthan. It is submitted that apart from that aspect, competent authorities of the State Government have already issued caste certificates in favour of the petitioners treating them as persons belonging to reserved category in the State of Rajasthan. Such certificates have been annexed with some of the writ petitions. Relying on the said aspect, it is submitted that the petitioners who were belonging to reserved category before their marriage and even after their marriage, since their respective husbands belong to reserved category, the petitioners cannot be denied the benefit of reservation simply on the ground that before their marriage they were residing with their parents in some other State. Mr. Soni has also submitted that as per the ordinary custom prevailing in India, a married woman is always required to reside at the place where his husband is staying and it can always be presumed that such woman is permanent resident of such State and it cannot be said that since such candidate is born outside the State of Rajasthan, such candidate cannot be treated as a permanent resident of State of Rajasthan. It is submitted that, therefore, the respondent RPSC may be directed to treat the candidature of the petitioners in the reserved category and accordingly, consider their case for appointment on merits in the said category. Learned counsel Mr. Ashok Gaur, who is appearing for some of the petitioners, has submitted that considering the social set up of our country, the case of a married lady cannot be equated with the case of a person who migrates to other State for the purpose of getting job. Mr. Gaur submitted that the condition that for getting the benefit of reservation, a candidate should be permanent resident of the State of Rajasthan, is arbitrary and on the basis of the place of birth, no discrimination should be permitted. ;