1. The prayer of the petitioner is to appoint her on the post of Teacher Grade-III (Class VI to VIII) in the subject of Social Studies in pursuance to the advertisement dated 02.04.2012 by treating her under the OBC (Women) Category.

2. The petitioner being fully eligible and entitled applied through online in pursuance to the advertisement dated 02.04.2012 for the Hanumangarh District under OBC (Women) category in the subject of Social Studies. She appeared in the written examination. The result was declared and was published category-wise along with cut-off marks. The cut-off marks for OBC-Female (General) was 150.91. The petitioner too got 150.91 marks. Thus, she was provisionally declared eligible for the purpose of verification of the documents. The petitioner submitted all the original documents of the educational qualifications and domicile certificate but she was asked to submit Marriage Registration Certificate. Therefore, she submitted the requisite affidavit regarding marriage stating that she got married to one Shri Vijay Kumar resident of Haryana and was not a domicile of Rajasthan any more. Despite being qualified and eligible, the petitioner was not offered appointment on the ground that she is now a resident of Haryana.

3. Reply has been filed.

4. As per the reply and the arguments raised by the learned counsel for the respondents, the petitioner was treated in the General category in the light of the Clause 8 Sub Note 1 of the advertisement and therefore, she cannot avail the benefit of reserved Category. The petitioner has furnished the domicile of her being resident of Haryana and thus, she cannot get the benefit under the OBC (Women) Category in the State of Rajasthan. Learned counsel for the respondents has also placed reliance on the judgment rendered by this Court in the case of State of Rajasthan Vs. Asha Devi reported in 2001 (4) RLW (Raj.) 357.

5. In the said case, respondent Asha Devi had come to the Court challenging the action of the respondents in denying appointment to her on the ground that she was not a bonafide resident of Sate of Rajasthan as she was earlier residing in Haryana and had come to Rajasthan on account of marriage. In the said case, the stand of the State was opposite to the stand taken in the present case. She was accepted as a resident/domicile of State of Rajasthan in view of her having got married in the State of Rajasthan. In the said judgment, it is nowhere stated that she i.e. the appellant was not eligible to apply in the State of her origin. In the said judgment, no doubt, it is mentioned that “the domicile of the writ petitioner cannot be any other than the domicile of her husband”, however, while observing the same, the judgment rendered by the Larger Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Dr. Pradeep Jain and Ors. vs. Union of India (UOI) and Ors. reported in AIR 1984 SC 1420 was not brought to the notice of the Court and therefore, the same was not referred, wherein it was held in no uncertain terms that the Constitution of India recognises only one domicile namely domicile of India and that too only on two grounds, one is domicile of birth and second by domicile of choice. The Larger Bench of the Supreme Court issued a warning to the State Government prescribing domiciliary requirement for an admission as a dangerous trend and went on to say in para 10 as under:

“10. Now it is clear on a reading of the Constitution that it recognises only one domicile namely, domicile in India. Article 5 of the Constitution is clear and explicit on this point and it refers only to one domicile, namely, "domicile in the territory of India." Moreover, it must be remembered that India is not a federal state in the traditional sense of that term. It is not a compact of sovereign states which have come together to form a federation by ceding a part of their sovereignty to the federal states. It has undoubtedly certain federal features but it is still not a federal state and i