VERMA, J. - (1.) THE petitioner married with Sanwal Ram Diyma a resident of village Ramchandra Pura District Alwar. THE marriage had taken place on 13. 5. 1989. THE residence certificate is attached as Annexure-2. She applied for the training of Lady Health Worker Course in the year 1998. THE candidates were required to appear for interview on 22. 12. 1997 as per letter dated 1. 12. 1997 (Annexure-3 ). She attended the office for the purpose of interview, but she was not interviewed on the ground that she was not the domicile of Rajasthan and was only a resident. Annexure-7 is also one of such letters. She again made representations, but she had been deprived of the admission on the ground that the certificate of bonafide resident cannot be accepted.
(2.) THE residence certificate has been attached by the petitioner to the effect that after her marriage she was living with her husband. THE contention of the respondents in the writ petition is that even though she is married to a resident of Rajasthan, but she should have been domicile of Rajasthan. THE petitioner has prayed for quashing of the action of the respondents and to allow the petitioner to join the training. In reply to the legal notice in Annexure R. 1 the respondents had taken a categorical stand that the petitioner after marrying with a resident of Rajasthan was staying with her husband, but the factum of marriage of the petitioner ipso facto cannot be considered to be a certificate of domicile. It is further submitted that all seats have been filled-up and even though the petition is allowed, the petitioner will not get benefit at this stage. In my opinion, the contention of the respondents cannot be sustained and is to be rejected. The writ petition deserves to be allowed. The petitioner who originally belongs to Haryana was married to a domicile resident of Rajasthan. As per Indian culture, it goes without saying that the wife is considered to be the domicile of the area where she is married and stays with her husband. The respondents had not applied their mind to this aspect and have mechanically rejected the application of the petitioner. The certificate of residence of a married woman to be a resident of Rajasthan where her husband is staying or residing is to be considered as a domicile certificate of such woman. It would be highly unjust to deprive the woman who marry in Rajasthan of her domicile status. The action of the respondents cannot be justified and is quashed. The contention of the respondents that the petitioner cannot be admitted at the stage may be true to some extent but the petitioner has suffered because of total illegal interpretation or the decision taken by the respondents in regard to domicile of the petitioner. In such circumstances, why should the petitioner suffer? It shall be appropriate for the respondent to make amends in admitting the petitioner, if not in this session, but in the ensuing session. The petitioner has already lost one year. The petitioner shall also be entitled to a cost of Rs. 2,000/ -. With the above-said observations, the writ petition is allowed. . ;