Marriage does not automatically disqualify a woman from eligibility for appointment in her parental village.

The appellant (Vipan Kumar) and Respondent No. 5 applied for the position of Rehbar-e-Taleem (RET) teacher at Government High School, Panjgrain, following a 2013 advertisement.

In the select panel, Respondent No. 5 was ranked at Serial No. 1, while the appellant was at Serial No. 5.

The appellant challenged this selection in a writ petition (SWP No. 2934/2014), alleging that Respondent No. 5 had married into another village (Dhanore Jaralan) seven years prior and thus failed the "local residence" eligibility requirement.

The official respondents countered that the school serves a 75% Scheduled Tribe (ST) population, making only ST candidates eligible, and that marriage does not automatically disqualify a woman from her parental village’s residency for selection.

Respondent No. 5 provided a certificate showing the deletion of her name from the electoral rolls of her husband’s village and proof of temporary teaching work in Panjgrain.

The Writ Court dismissed the petition, leading to this Letters Patent Appeal (LPA).

1. Whether Respondent No. 5 lost her status as a "local resident" of Village Panjgrain for the purpose of the RET Scheme due to her marriage into a different village.

2. Whether the appellant successfully substantiated the claim that Respondent No. 5 did not reside in the target village.

The Court applied the eligibility criteria of the Rehbar-e-Taleem (RET) Scheme regarding local residency and specific norms for schools serving predominantly SC/ST populations, where only candidates from those categories are eligible.

It relied on the judicial principle established in *SWP No. 2014/2003*, which stipulates that a woman cannot be disentitled from selection under the RET Scheme in her parental village solely because of her marriage into another village.

The Court also acknowledged the precedent in *Ruksana Jabeen v. State of J&K and others* (SWP No. 3004/2018) regarding the treatment of such appointments following the winding up of the RET scheme.

The Court found that the appellant failed to provide sufficient evidence to prove that Respondent No. 5 resided elsewhere.

Conversely, the Court noted that Respondent No. 5 had proactively produced a surrender certificate proving the deletion of her name from the electoral rolls of Village Dhanore Jaralan, which supported her claim of residence in Panjgrain.

Furthermore, the official respondents' data indicated the school serves a 75% ST population, and since Respondent No. 5 belonged to the ST category and possessed higher merit than the appellant, her placement at Serial No. 1 was justified.

The Court emphasized that under the relevant rules and precedents, marriage does not create an automatic bar to "local" status in a woman's parental village for recruitment purposes.

The Court held that the surrender certificate and ST category eligibility sufficiently supported the selection.

Consequently, the High Court dismissed the appeal and all connected applications, upholding the Writ Court’s decision.