HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
GULAFSHAN – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF UTTARAKHAND – Respondent
Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings SL.
Date or directions COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS No.
and Registrar’s order with Signatures WPSS/ 668/ 2026 Hon’ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.
Mr. Amar Murti Shukla, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. S.S. Chaudhary, Standing Counsel for the State.
2. Petitioner applied for the post of Assistant Teacher Government Primary School pursuant to advertisement issued by District Education Officer (Elementary), Champawat. She was permitted to participate in the selection; however, after counselling, her candidature was rejected on the ground that she belongs to State of Uttar Pradesh, therefore, benefit of reservation cannot be given to her.
3. It is not in dispute that petitioner claimed reservation available to Other Backward Classes. It is also not in dispute that she was born in District Bijnor and her parents are permanent residents of Uttar Pradesh; however, her husband is a permanent resident of Uttarakhand in District Champawat.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that upon her marriage, petitioner acquired domicile of her husband, therefore, she cannot be termed as domicile of Uttar Pradesh any more.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.