Gujarat HC: Two-Year Break Due to Father's Transfer Cannot Defeat Ten-Year Domicile Claim

Justice Nirzar S. Desai quashed a police order refusing a domicile certificate to an 18-year-old student who studied in Gujarat for all but two years, when her father was transferred to Chennai on account of his employment.

The High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad has quashed a refusal order passed by the Inspector of Police, Sarkhej Police Station, that denied a domicile certificate to an 18-year-old student on the ground that she had not been a continuous resident of Gujarat for ten years. Justice Nirzar S. Desai, sitting singly, held that a two-year absence caused solely by her father's employment transfer to Chennai could not be counted as a break in residence for the purpose of computing the ten-year requirement. The court directed the concerned authority to issue the domicile certificate within one week, and in any case not later than 30 July 2026. The petitioner had applied for the certificate to claim a local domicile benefit while filling application forms for NEET and other courses.

The Student's Educational History in Gujarat

Komal, the petitioner, was born on 15 March 2008 at Mumbai, Maharashtra. Her father joined a company and was posted at Mundra, District Kutch, Gujarat, in the year 2008. Komal was admitted to nursery class on 16 April 2011 and studied at a school in Mundra till Standard IV, that is, up to 28 March 2018.

Her father was then transferred to Chennai, Tamil Nadu, from 21 April 2018 till May 2020 — a period of two years. In 2020, following a transfer back to Gujarat, Komal was admitted to Delhi Public School, Bopal, Ahmedabad, in Standard VII and continued there through Standard XII, completing her schooling in March 2026.

After completing Standard XII, Komal filled application forms for various courses including NEET. For the purpose of claiming a local domicile benefit, she applied to respondent No. 3, the Police Inspector, for a domicile certificate on 5 February 2026.

The Rejection and the Ground Cited

The Inspector of Police, Sarkhej Police Station, rejected the application by an order dated 6 March 2026, communicated to the petitioner on 20 March 2026. The sole ground was that Komal was not a continuous resident of the State of Gujarat for a period of ten years and the authority was therefore not in a position to issue a domicile certificate.

The respondent State's position before the court was anchored in Circular No. PTR/1114-65F.II issued by the General Administration Department, Government of Gujarat. The Assistant Government Pleader, Mr. Angesh Panchal, argued that the circular required continuous residence of ten years in Gujarat and that Komal had not fulfilled this condition because of the two-year period spent in Chennai.

Petitioner's Case: Sixteen of Eighteen Years Spent in Gujarat

Advocate Ms. Chaitali Dave, appearing for Komal, submitted that the issue was no longer res integra and was squarely covered by earlier decisions of co-ordinate benches. She pointed to three prior decisions: Muskan Sunilkanth Tiwari v. State of Gujarat, Special Civil Application No. 17426 of 2018 and allied matters, decided on 5 December 2018; Tilakkumar Vijaykumar Mishra v. State of Gujarat and Others, Special Civil Application No. 6118 of 2024, decided on 30 July 2024; and Aman Ramesh Panjiyar v. Mamlatdar Office, Surat and Another, Special Civil Application No. 13338 of 2025, decided on 16 October 2025.

Ms. Dave argued that out of Komal's 18 years of age, she had spent 16 years in Gujarat. The two-year absence was entirely on account of her father's transfer and was not of her own choosing. She submitted the impugned order deserved to be quashed and the respondents directed to issue the domicile certificate.

What the Earlier Decisions Established

The Muskan Sunilkanth Tiwari judgment, delivered by a co-ordinate bench of the Gujarat High Court, laid down detailed propositions on the meaning of domicile and the scope of the ten-year residence requirement. The bench there held that the term “domicile” as used in the rules means residence of a particular kind — one that need not be continuous but must be indefinite and not purely fleeting.

On the specific question of the circular requiring continuous ten-year stay, the earlier bench held that when a rule does not prescribe an additional requirement such as unbroken physical presence for ten years, the State cannot introduce that requirement through a letter or circular. The bench further held that if a student goes outside Gujarat for a few years to study or on account of parental transfer and then returns to reside with parents and pursues further education in Gujarat, the period of absence cannot be excluded while computing the minimum ten-year stay.

The final conclusions in Muskan Sunilkanth Tiwari recorded that Rule 4(1-A) of the Amendment Rules, 2018, merely requires that the candidate be a “domicile of Gujarat State” and does not impose a condition of minimum continuous stay of ten years. Any such additional requirement, if not found in the rules, cannot be introduced by the State through administrative circulars.

The same ratio was followed in Tilakkumar Vijaykumar Mishra and again in Aman Ramesh Panjiyar. In the latter, the court directed issuance of the domicile certificate on the same day, with a deadline of 9 p.m. or by 10 a.m. the next morning.

Justice Desai's Reasoning in the Present Case

Justice Desai accepted the petitioner's position entirely. He noted that, except for the two-year period from April 2018 to May 2020, Komal had studied in Gujarat right from kindergarten through Standard XII. The break was created solely because of her father's transfer to Chennai, not by any independent choice of the petitioner or her family to relocate.

The court applied the principle from the co-ordinate bench decisions directly: where a student is compelled to remain outside Gujarat on account of parental transfer, that period of absence cannot reasonably be treated as a break in computing continuous residence for the ten-year requirement. The court held it would not be reasonable to treat the two-year Chennai period as severing Komal's domiciliary connection with Gujarat.

The State, represented by the Assistant Government Pleader Mr. Angesh Panchal, had filed an affidavit but was unable to place any distinguishable facts on record that would take this case outside the scope of the earlier decisions. Justice Desai observed that in the absence of any such distinguishing fact, the petitioner's case was required to be considered in light of the decisions relied upon, and she was entitled to succeed.

The court declined to reproduce the relevant extracts from Aman Ramesh Panjiyar separately, noting that it followed the same ratio as the earlier two judgments.

Order

Justice Nirzar S. Desai quashed and set aside the order dated 20 March 2026 passed by the Inspector of Police, Sarkhej Police Station, rejecting Komal's application for a domicile certificate.

The respondent concerned authority was directed to issue the domicile certificate in favour of the petitioner immediately, preferably within one week from the date of judgment, and in any case not later than 30 July 2026.

The petition was allowed, rule was made absolute, and direct service was permitted.