The Patna High Court has ruled that residing in a state after marriage does not automatically grant reservation benefits under Article 16(4). According to LiveLaw, a two-judge panel led by Justice Prabhat Kumar Singh and Justice Rana Vikram Singh affirmed the rejection of Vidyawati Kiran’s application. She had sought the Assistant Prosecution Officer post under the Scheduled Caste (SC) category via the Bihar Public Service Commission (BPSC), despite her father’s permanent residence in Uttar Pradesh.
LiveLaw reported that Kiran, of the Dushadh caste, argued her 28-year stay in Bihar since her 1996 wedding established local domicile. She cited Sections 15 and 16 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, which transfer a woman’s legal domicile to her husband’s upon marriage. The BPSC had initially rejected her in December 2023, noting her caste certificate relied on her husband’s status rather than her father’s. After a single judge dismissed her writ petition in August 2024, she appealed to the division bench.
The court observed that the BPSC advertisement explicitly limited SC benefits to original or permanent residents of Bihar. The judges noted these eligibility rules were set before the selection process began. They stated that legal domicile from marriage does not inherently create constitutional reservation rights. The core purpose, they explained, is to stop candidates from general or forward castes in their home state from gaining advantages in another state through voluntary relocation or marriage. Reservation rights are tied to the candidate’s origin and birthplace where historical disadvantage occurred.
According to LiveLaw, the bench found no perversity or illegality in the lower court’s decision. It referenced the 2026 BLJ 249 precedent in Awinash Kumar v. State of Bihar, which holds that recruitment conditions bind candidates unless they contradict specific statutes. The court concluded that the examination rules were fixed beforehand, and Kiran was bound by those terms. Mr. Ramakant Ram represented the appellant, while Mr. Sanjay Kumar Ghosasvey argued for the respondents.