ORDER :

1. The petitioner herein calls in question appointment of respondent No.3 on the post of Assistant Grade III by the Collector, Koriya-Baikunthpur.

2. It is the case of the petitioner that the Collector, Koriya-Baikunthpur issued an advertisement for appointment for various posts for District Administration, of which clause 2 provides that the candidate must be domicile of District Koriya, in which the petitioner as well respondent NO.3 both applied apart from other candidates and respondent No.3 submitted domicile of Koriya district showing her father's name, who was at particular time working as Assistant Grade III in I.T.I. Chirimiri, District Koriya. Thereafter, on 5.1.2012 the Collector, Koriya Baikunthpur issued appointment order in favour of respondent No.3 and the petitioner was kept in waiting list, which the petitioner has challenged by filing this writ petition questioning the domicile certificate issued in favour of respondent No.3 on 22.9.2011 (Annexure P-8) and consequent selection of respondent No.3 on the post of Assistant Grade III on 5.1.2012 (Annexure P-13).

3. Respondents No.1 and 2 have filed their return stating inter-alia that the petitioner has called for objection against proposed selection, but the petitioner did not raise any objection. The petitioner can prefer an appeal against domicile certificate issued in favour of respondent No.3 under Section 44 of the provisions of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, 1959.

4. Respondent No.3 has also filed return relying upon the Executive Instructions dated 19.4.2002 and it is the case of respondent No.3 that her husband is stayed with her parents at District Koriya, therefore, domicile certificate has rightly been issued in her favour, as such, the writ petition deserves to be dismissed.

5. Mr.Varun Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner, would submit that respondent No.3 has been married to Santosh Gadhwalia, who is resident of Bilaspur district and not of Koriya district and by virtue of Section 16 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 (hereinafter called as 'the Act of 1925'), a wife's domicile during her marriage follows the domicile of her husband, as such, in the light of decision of the Rajasthan High Court in the matter of State of Rajasthan & Others v. Asha Devi, 2001 SCC OnLine Raj 321, decision of the Uttarakhand High Court in the matter of Jyoti Bala v. State of Uttarakhand and another, (2009) 1 UC 546 and decision of the Allahabad High Court in the matter of Dr.Madhu Rana v. State of U.P. and others, ILR 1 Allahabad 323, the writ petition deserves to be allowed.

6. On the other hand, Mr. K.R. Nair, learned counsel for respondent No.3 would submit that the petitioner did not raise any objection particularly with regard to domicile certificate of respondent No.3 right in time and after the time provided for raising objection, appointment of respondent No.3 has become final and objection raised thereafter cannot be entertained. He would further submit that the petitioner having participated in selection process cannot raise an objection thereafter particularly he has not alleged that appointment of respondent No.3 is mala fide and it is contrary to statutory provisions and further that domicile certificate issued in favour of respondent NO.3 is accordance with the Executive Instructions dated 19.4.2002 (Annexure R-1).

7. Mr.Siddharth Dubey, learned Deputy Government Advocate for respondents No.1 and 2, would submit that the petitioner did not take objection right in time, as such, the writ petition deserves to be dismissed.

8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions made hereinabove and also went through the records with utmost circumspection.

9. The Collector, Koriya-Baikunthpur by recruitment notice dated 5.9.2011 (Annexure P-1) invited applications for the post of Assistant Grade III incorporating a condition of original resident of District Koriya, Chhattisgarh as one of the condition for recruitment/app