Marriage Outside District Disentitles Candidate From Claiming Local Residence Preference In Public Recruitment: J&K&L High Court

The Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court has ruled that a candidate who marries outside the concerned district cannot insist on the benefit of local residence preference in public recruitment unless such residence is established by cogent and reliable documentary evidence.

A bench of Justice Javed Iqbal Wani held that the petitioner failed to substantiate her claim of continued residence in the village after marriage and that the authorities were justified in rejecting her candidature.

The Court noted that although the petitioner asserted that she continued to reside with her parents after her marriage, “except for the Panchayatnama relied upon by the petitioner… no other documentary proof has been placed on record before this Court” to support that claim.

In contrast, the respondents had produced official records, including the ration card, voter list, and Aadhaar card, which showed the petitioner's residence at her husband's address outside the district. The Court observed:

“In the absence of any credible proof in rebuttal to such documentary proofs of the respondents being official in nature, the petitioner's claim to be the resident of the village in question cannot be said to be sufficient.”

The Court further relied upon the enquiry conducted by the Tehsildar on the directions of the Deputy Commissioner, noting that the said enquiry report had not been challenged by the petitioner. On this basis, the Court held:

“The only inescapable conclusion that can be drawn is that the candidature of the petitioner in the provisional selection list was rightly rejected.”

Emphasising that the recruitment advertisement and corrigendum provided for a preference in favour of local residents, the Court held that respondent No. 5 was “rightly selected and preferred in terms of the preference clause contained in the advertisement notice.”

On the allegation of delay in the selection process, the Court found no merit, observing that:

“In the absence of any specific allegations of mala fides supported by credible and cogent foundational facts, the official respondents cannot be said to have caused the delay… for extraneous considerations.”

Case-Title: Sushma Devi vs State of J&K

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (JKL) 7

Click Here To Read/Download Order