Vidyawati Kiran vs The State of Bihar through Principal Secretary,

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Letters Patent Appeal No.947 of 2024
In
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.11672 of 2024
CNR No. BRHC010944672024
======================================================
Vidyawati Kiran D/O Gulab Chand and Wife of Resident of Mohamadpur
Haribhagwanpur P.O P.S Bhagwanpur, District-Vaishali, Bihar.
... ... Appellant
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through Principal Secretary, The General Administration
Department, Patna.
2. The Bihar Public Service Commission through the Chairman, 15, Jawaharlal
Nehru Marg, Bailey Road, Patna, Bihar.
3. The Secretary Bihar Public Service Commission, 15, Jawaharlal Nehru
Marg, Bailey Road, Patna, Bihar- 800001.
... ... Respondents
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant/s : Mr.Ramakant Ram, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr.Sanjay Kumar Ghosasvey, AC to AAG- 3
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR SINGH
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RANA VIKRAM SINGH
ORAL JUDGMENT
(Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR SINGH)
Date : 04-11-2026
In view of the submission made by learned counsel for
the Bihar Public Service Commission (hereinafter referred to ‘the
Commission’, paragraph 3 of the previous order dated 5.10.2026
requiring it to pay Rs. 10,000 to the High Court Legal Services
Committee, is hereby waived.
2. The present Letters Patent Appeal under Clause 10 of
the Letters Patent of the High Court of Judicature at Patna has
been directed against the final order and judgment dated
06.08.2024 passed by the Learned Single Judge in Civil Writ
Jurisdiction Case No. 11672 of 2024. By the impugned order, the

Patna High Court L.P.A No.947 of 2024 dt.04-11-2026
2/6
Learned Single Judge was pleased to dismiss the writ petition
preferred by the present appellant.
3. Brief fact of this case are that pursuant to the
advertisement, issued by the Bihar Public Service Commission
(hereinafter referred to as BPSC) on 06/02/2020 bearing No
1/2020, writ petitioner (appellant herein) filed an application.
Thereafter, he took part in the examination held 07/02/2021
through an admit card issued by BPSC, as Scheduled Caste
Category Candidate. Being the qualified candidate in preliminary
examination, petitioner was allotted admit card to appear in Mains
Examination scheduled to be held on and from 12/11/2022 to
15/11/2022 and after passing the Mains Examination, she appeared
in the interview with all documents but when the BPSC published
the final result of Assistant Prosecution Officer on 2.12.2023,
petitioner was amongst the eight candidates declared unsuccessful
on the sole ground that her caste/domicile certificate was not
issued based on her father's permanent place of residence. Her
father is a permanent resident of the State of Uttar Pradesh,
whereas she got married in 1996 in Biharand since then she has
resided in Bihar continuously. Aggrieved appellant filed C.W.J.C.
No, 1264 of 2024, wherein this Court vide order dated 08.02.2024
granted her liberty to approach the Commission for redressal of
her grievance. The representation submitted by the appellant was
rejected vide Memo No. 5018 dated 07.03.2024, and her review
application dated 18.03.2024 was also turned down vide letter
dated 26.04.20248. Challenging these rejection orders, the
appellant filed C.W.J.C. No. 11672 of 2024, which was dismissed
by the Learned Single Judge on 06.08.2024. Hence, this Letters
Patent Appeal.

Patna High Court L.P.A No.947 of 2024 dt.04-11-2026
3/6
4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the
appellant belongs to the Dushadh caste, which is recognized as a
Scheduled Caste in both the State of Uttar Pradesh (her natal State)
and the State of Bihar (her marital State). She completed her
education in Bihar after her marriage on 27.02.1996 and has been
permanently domiciled in Bihar for over 28 years.
Under Sections 15 and 16 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925,
upon marriage, a woman acquires the domicile of her husband.
Thus, her domicile is unquestionably Bihar.
5. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the State
and the Commission support the impugned judgment and submit
that the conditions governing reservation were clearly stipulated in
Advertisement No. 01/2020 before commencement of the selection
process. It is submitted that Column 6(ii) of the advertisement
specifically provided that the benefit of reservation on the basis of
caste would be available only to candidates who are permanent
residents/original residents of Bihar. Candidates residing outside
Bihar were not entitled to claim such reservation.
It is further submitted that Column 6(iii) (A) required candidates
belonging to the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe categories
to produce both caste and permanent residence/domicile
certificates issued by the competent authority. Learned counsel for
the Commission further relies upon the instructions contained in
the interview letter, particularly Clause 5(ii), read with the
Government instructions dated 08.03.2011 and 10.03.2011,
requiring married women claiming reservation to furnish the
relevant certificates in the name and address of their father and not
their husband. It is contended that the appellant's father is
admittedly a resident of Uttar Pradesh and, therefore, the appellant
cannot claim the benefit of Bihar-specific reservation merely on

Patna High Court L.P.A No.947 of 2024 dt.04-11-2026
4/6
the basis of her marriage or subsequent residence in Bihar.
It is thus submitted that the Commission has acted strictly in
accordance with the applicable policy and the conditions of the
advertisement, and no interference with the judgment of the
learned Single Judge is warranted.
6. Learned counsel for the Commission further contends
that in the process of advertisement, it has been clearly mentioned
on the line of reservation that those candidates who are not
resident of Bihar, shall not be granted reservation and as for grant
of reservation permanent resident/domicile certificate is the
necessary ingredients. Not only in the advertisement, rather in the
interview letter also, it has been categorically mentioned that the
resident certificate must be in the name of candidate’s father and
not in the name of candidate’s husband. Secondly, ‘the rules of the
game’ were laid down prior to the examination process and having
participated with full knowledge of these terms, the candidate
cannot challenge them post-selection.
7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and
perused the materials available on the record.
8. The argument of learned counsel for the appellant
based on Sections 15 and 16 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 is
wholly misplaced. Civil domicile acquired by operation of law
upon marriage does not automatically confer constitutional
reservation benefits under Article 16(4) of the Constitution of
India. The fundamental objective behind restricting cross-state
reservation benefits is to prevent candidates belonging to general
or forward classes in their home State from claiming unearned
benefits in another State by marriage or relocation. A person who
is a member of a Scheduled Caste in State 'A' cannot carry that

Patna High Court L.P.A No.947 of 2024 dt.04-11-2026
5/6
status to claim reservation benefits in State 'B' upon voluntary
migration or marriage. Reservation rights are anchored to the
origin and birth of the candidate in the state where the
disadvantage was historically suffered. In this regard, reliance is
placed on the decision of the Constitution Benches of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in Action Committee on Issue of Caste
Certificate to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes in the
State of Maharashtra v. Union of India, reported in (1994) 5
SCC 244 and Bir Singh v. Delhi Jal Board, reported in (2018) 10
SCC 312.
9. In the present case, petitioner is not entitled for
benefit as the BPSC has framed the Rule in the light of the State
policy and prior to advertisement, this matter has been decided at
the Government level, which has also got reflected in
Advertisement Columns 6 (ii) and (iii)(A) as well as in clause 5(ii)
of the interview letter and, hence, no case of the petitioner is made
out.
10. It is also undisputed that ‘rules of the game’ has
already been fixed prior to entering the examination process and,
therefore, the decision taken by the BPSC is completely in
accordance with rule of which the petitioner already had
knowledge. Upon perusal of the provisions of law, it transpires that
prior to entering into the advertisement, rule was framed and since
rule was framed then in that view of the matter the petitioner has
no option but to follow the rule until and unless it is changed.
Terms of advertisement issued in pursuant to any rules or
notification, binds parties having trapping of statutory
prescriptions, unless it becomes contrary to either a rule or an Act.
Reliance is placed on the decision of the Division bench of this

Patna High Court L.P.A No.947 of 2024 dt.04-11-2026
6/6
Court in case of Awinash Kumar and others Vs. State of Bihar
and others , reported in 2026(6) BLJ 249.
11. We, therefore, find no perversity or illegality in the
conclusion reached by the learned Single Judge. The appellant has
failed to demonstrate that the Commission acted contrary to the
applicable recruitment conditions or constitutional provisions.
12. In the result, this Letters Patent Appeal stands
dismissed.

(Prabhat Kumar Singh, J)
(Rana Vikram Singh, J)
Shashi
AFR/NAFR A F R
CAV DATE N A
Uploading Date 6.11.2026
Transmission Date 6.11.2026