The High Court · 2025

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ order or Direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, to declare inaction of Respondents particularly Respondent No.4 in not issuing Domicile and Residential certificate in given format in favour of the 2nd Petitioner for employment purpose. as illegal, arbikary, in violation Article 14,21 of Constitution of lndia and against the provrsions of lndian Succession Act, '1925 and against all settled principal of law and consequently direct the 4th Respondent to issue the Domicile and Residential certificate in favour of the 2nd Petitioner in given format forthwith. lA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under section 151 cpc prayrng that in the :ircumstances stated rn the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High courl r ray be preased to dire:t the 4th Respondent to issue the Domicire and Residenti r lertificate in favour of the 2nd Petitioner in given format forthwith, pending drs rosal of the main writ Petition Counsel for the petitioner: SRI AKKAM ESHWAR Counsel for the Respondent No1: Gp FOR SOCIAL WEL.| ARE Counsel for the Respondents No 2 To 4: Gp FOR REVEI,{ JE The Court made the following: ORDER w IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA IIRIT PETITION No.341O6 of 2025 2a.Lr.202s Between: Dau{e Vishal & another AND The State of Telangana Rcpresented by its Principal Secretary, Socia I We l[a re Department ...Petitioner Dr.B.R.Ambedkar Bhavan, Secratariat, Hyderabad & three others ...Respondents ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed questioning the action of respondent No.4 in not issr-ting Domicile and residential Certificatc in given format in lavour ol 2"d petitioner for employment purpose and consequently, direct the 4, respondent to issue the domicile and residential certihcate in favour of the 2od petitioner.

2. Heard Sri Akkam Eshwar, learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Government Pleader for Social Welfare for respondent No. 1 and learned Government Pleader for Revenue for respondent Nos.2 to 4. Perused the record.

3. Jegq5ned counsel for the petitioners submits that 1st Petitioner, belongs -t Z t.r BC B comrnuniLv is rcsident of Yenka Village, mar- :d thc ',"a Petitionr:r , originailv from Maharashtra, on 05.O5 2024, ancl their mzrrrias. u,a:; regisLered on 22.U i .'21)4. After marriagc, the 2nd Fr rtiont:r changed l-rer namc irom Patange Nikira Prabhakar to Dawle Nikirz . rrpdated her Aadhar- anci resiciential re cords to Telangana, and obtainr ( a Telangana Statr: Eleclion ldentitl'Card. She applied for the Constabl,r (GD) post under tht: 2025 SSC notifir,'ation, clt-.ared the lvritten and physir:e I tests, and was callcrI lor Document Vcnfic:ation and Medical Examination on 13.1 1.2025, bu,. lacked onlv the Do micilc/ Residential Certificate in the SSC-prescriberl format. Although the 4,r, Rcspondent issued this t:rtificate to the 1.r Petitioner, it refusecl to issuc it to the 2n,i petiti, ner despite the 3r,r Respondcnt's endorscmcnt. He frirther stated that lJ I ler Section 15 of tht; Indi4n Succession Act, 1925, a \r'oman acquires lt,r husband's domiciL: upon marriage and several High Courts in Rajasthar Uttar pradesh, anrl Uttarakhand (Asha Dcvi; Madhu Rana; Jyoti Bala cas: ;) have held the samr: and directed issuancc of domicile certificates.

4. I-earned counsel for the petitioners further t.r [,ed upon the order passed by the Ralasthan lligh Court in the case of .As hc Devi Vs. State of Rajrrsthan,t whcrein it is stated as follows: "T'he petitioner who ongintlg belongs to Haryana tuas r rrried to a d_omtcile I 2000 DNI (Raj ) 181 ;w: iEs, rf/ / ',:, ./' I I i i I i I I 3 rcsid.ent of Rajasthan. As per Indtan cllturq it goes LDithout saging that the wrfe is ansidered to be the domtcile of the area uhere she is married and sluus LDilh her htLsband. The respondents had no! apptied their mircl to this aspect and ltaue meclrctnicallg rejected the application oJ the petitioner. The ccft|icate ol' residence of a nnffied Luoman to be a resident oi RaJasthan tohere hcr lrusband is staying or residing is to be considered os a dom{cile certi|-icate of such utoman. "

5. Learncd Govcrnment Pleader for Revenue placed on record writtcn instruc[ions datcd 10. 11.2025 from Respondent No.4/The Tahsildar, Utnoor Mandal, Adilabad District, slating that 2nd Petitioner's Dornicile Certificatc recluest was rejected as she completed her Secondary School Certificate in Maharashtra in March 2O2O. It was also noted that she applicd lor I , Constable (GD) in CAPFs using her father's name 'Patange Prabhakar" and not her husband's name. It is also submitted that, vide letter dated

17.10.2025, the District Administration informed the difhculties faced by I Tahsildars in issuing Domicile, Nativity, and Religion Certificates for Arml and other Central Government job notihcations, wiLh no guidelines issued. Therefore, the petitioner's request cannot be considered and may be dismissed at the admission stage.

6. Considering the submissions of learned counsel and a perusal of the record, it is evident that the 2na Petitioner, being lawfully married to the I st Petitioner, has acquired her husband's domicile under Section 15 of the I a Indian Succcssion Act, 1925. There [orc, this Court is o i-he opinion that the 2n(l pctition.rr musr be trcatcd as a domicile of thrt zLme dist rict as her husl>ar-rci, and tiie reiu'..:ri of the z+rh responrienr to is; r: thc D'mic e a.d Residential Certiflcate is unlawful 7' In vicq' of the above ancl in light of the order p.rss rd by the Rajastrran High Court in the case of Asha Deui (s-upra), this \I,rL petition is allou,ecl, directi,g Respondent No.4 to consrder the apptication ri the 2.rl petitioner and issue the Domicire and Residenrial certificare in -1-re prescribed SSC Ibrmat within t*'o *'eeks from thc ciate of receipt of r r;opv of this order. Therc shall be no order as tti costs. _p.l4tqg misce-llaneous applications, if a1y. sha I stand closed. SD/-S, TALLIKARJUNA RAO fri;t TANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To 'l The-Principal Secretary. Social Welfare Department, til rte of Telangana, Dr B.12. Ambedkar Bhavan, Secratariat, Hyderabad.

2. The District Collector, Adilabad Distnct. 3. The Sub-Collector, Utnoor. Adilabad District. 4. The Tahsildar, Utnoor Mandal, Adilabad Diskict. 5. One CC to SRl. AKKAM ESHWAR, Advocate [OPUC] 6. Two CCs to GP FOR SOCIAL WELFARE ,High Court I rr the State of Telangana at Hyderabad . [OUT] 7 Two CCs to GP FOR REVENUE. High Court for the St te of Telangana at Hyderabad [OUT]

8. Two CD Copies DAN BS (S' :ffi HIGH COURT DATED:28 t1112025 ORDER WP.No.34106 ot 2025 F. ir tr rt4i o A ( o() { [il ,t"; o-. .i\ i\ Y),z .6) {, * li lr I l : I i t l i I I I l I I I I I I I I I i ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS .d* Y+- \)-