KOMAL D/O SANSARCHANDRA CHAUBE V. STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS. R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 8474 OF 2026:

DATE: 24.07.2026

COURT: High Court of Gujarat

BENCH: Justice Nirzar S. Desai

FACTS:

The petitioner, an 18-year-old student born on 15.03.2008 in Mumbai, Maharashtra, shifted to Mundra, District Kutch, Gujarat, in 2008 when her father was posted there. She studied in Mundra from nursery (admitted on 16.04.2011) till Standard IV (up to 28.03.2018). Due to her father’s transfer, the family resided in Chennai, Tamil Nadu, for about two years (21.04.2018 to May 2020). Upon the father’s re-transfer to Gujarat in 2020, the petitioner joined Delhi Public School, Bopal, Ahmedabad, in Standard VII and completed Standard XII in March 2026. Out of her 18 years, she spent approximately 16 years in Gujarat.

For claiming local domicile benefit in connection with NEET and other course applications, the petitioner applied for a Domicile Certificate on 05.02.2026. The Inspector of Police, Sarkhej Police Station (respondent No. 3), rejected the application by order dated 06.03.2026 (communicated on 20.03.2026) on the ground that she had not been a continuous resident of Gujarat for ten years as required by Circular No. PTR/1114-65F.II of the General Administration Department, Government of Gujarat. The petitioner challenged this order seeking its quashing and a direction for issuance of the Domicile Certificate (prayer 24(C) was not pressed).

ISSUES:

Whether the rejection of the petitioner’s application for a Gujarat Domicile Certificate on the ground of lack of continuous ten-year residence is sustainable, particularly when the only break of two years was caused by the father’s official transfer, and whether the petitioner is entitled to the certificate in light of binding coordinate Bench decisions interpreting “domicile” under the relevant rules and circular.

JUDGEMENT WITH REASONING:

The Gujarat High Court quashed and set aside the impugned order dated 20.03.2026 and directed the concerned authority to issue a Domicile Certificate in favour of the petitioner immediately, preferably within one week and in any case not later than 30.07.2026. The petition was allowed and Rule was made absolute.

The Court held that the issue stands covered by a series of coordinate Bench decisions, notably Muskan Sunilkanth Tiwari v. State of Gujarat (SCA No. 17426 of 2018 and allied matters, decided on 05.12.2018), Tilakkumar Vijaykumar Mishra v. State of Gujarat (SCA No. 6118 of 2024, decided on 30.07.2024), and Aman Ramesh Panjiyar v. Mamlatdar Office, Surat (SCA No. 13338 of 2025, decided on 16.10.2025). These decisions clarify that Rule 4(1-A) merely requires a candidate to be a “domicile of Gujarat State” without defining the term or prescribing a mandatory continuous ten-year stay. Domicile denotes residence of a particular kind that is indefinite and not purely fleeting; it need not be unbroken. Administrative instructions or circulars cannot introduce additional conditions not found in the Rules. Where a student leaves the State for a few years (including for parental service transfers) and thereafter returns to continue education and reside with parents who have settled in Gujarat, the intervening period cannot be excluded while computing the requisite residence.

Applying this ratio, the Court noted that the petitioner had studied in Gujarat for nearly eleven years (from nursery/KG to Standard IV and again from Standard VII to XII) and had spent about sixteen of her eighteen years in the State. The only break of two years arose solely because of her father’s official transfer to Chennai. No distinguishing facts were shown by the State. Treating that involuntary absence as a fatal discontinuity would be unreasonable and contrary to the settled interpretation of domicile. Consequently, the petitioner satisfied the requirements of domicile and was entitled to the certificate; the impugned rejection order could not be sustained.

ANALYSIS:

This judgment reinforces a consistent and student-centric interpretation of “domicile” under Gujarat’s admission and administrative framework. By relying on a line of coordinate Bench decisions beginning with Muskan Sunilkanth Tiwari, the Court reiterates that Rule 4(1-A) requires only that a candidate be a domicile of Gujarat and does not engraft a rigid condition of unbroken ten-year continuous residence. Administrative circulars cannot add extrastatutory requirements. Temporary absences compelled by a parent’s official transfer do not rupture domicile when the student has otherwise spent the overwhelming majority of her life and education in the State and the family has demonstrated an intention to settle there. The decision therefore protects genuine long-term residents from mechanical application of residence criteria that ignore the realities of transferable employment.

On the practical plane, the ruling ensures that students who return to Gujarat after short, involuntary interruptions remain eligible for local domicile benefits critical for competitive examinations such as NEET. By directing immediate issuance of the certificate within a strict timeline, the Court balances administrative compliance with the urgency of the academic calendar. The absence of any distinguishing facts advanced by the State left the Court with no room to depart from settled precedent, underscoring that domicile is a concept of enduring residential connection rather than an unbroken chronological ledger. The judgment thus continues to curb overly technical denials that would otherwise frustrate the educational aspirations of children of transferable employees.