Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Rachna Rani vs The State Of Rajasthan ... on 20 November, 2025
[2025:RJ-JD:50208]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 20072/2025
Rachna Rani W/o Shri Vidhyadhar, Aged About 32 Years, R/o
Manakthedi, District Hanumangarh.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Secretary, Rural
Development And Panchayati Raj Department,
Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat Jaipur.
2. The Director, Elementary Education Rajasthan, Bikaner.
3. The Rajasthan Staff Selection Board, Through Its
Secretary, State Agriculture Management Institute
Campus, Durgapura, Jaipur.
4. Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, District Barmer.
5. District Education Officer, (Headquarter), Elementary
Education, Barmer.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Vishal Jangid
For Respondent(s) : Ms. Meenal Singhvi &
Ms. Pratyksha Rajpurohit for
Mr. Rajesh Panwar, AAG
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MUNNURI LAXMAN
Order 20/11/2025
1. The present writ petition has been filed challenging the action of the respondents in not giving appointment to the petitioner on the ground that the selection under Economically Weaker Section (EWS) category was not followed for the reason that she is originally a native of Punjab and she became as resident of Rajasthan after marriage.
2. Learned counsel for both parties submitted that by relying upon Clause 12.2 (vi) of the advertisement dated 31.12.2021 similar challenge was made in the case of Aman Kumari Vs. The State of Rajasthan & Ors. (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. (Uploaded on 20/11/2025 at 04:49:55 PM) (Downloaded on 20/11/2025 at 07:24:43 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:50208] (2 of 4) [CW-20072/2025] 7512/2022) and connected writ petition. A Coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 21.09.2022 quashed such condition and allowed the consideration of such candidates.
3. Relevant paragraphs of the order dated 21.09.2022 passed in the case of Aman Kumari (supra) reads as follows:
"Learned counsel for the petitioners made submissions that the action of the respondents in excluding the petitioners, who otherwise fall in the EWS category only on account of the fact that they originally are from outside the State and they have been married into Rajasthan, is not justified.
Reference has been made to Circulars dated 10.02.2020 & 16.08.2021 (Annex.11 to SBCWP No.7512/2022) in this regard. It is submitted that the circulars specifically provide that the candidates like petitioners would be entitled to the said benefit. A reply to the petition has been filed, inter-alia, indicating that as specific stipulation has been made in the advertisement and despite that, the petitioners have applied, the petitioners are estopped for questioning its validity.
Further submissions have been made that the Circulars dated 10.02.2020 & 16.08.2021 (Annex.11 to SBCWP No.7512/2022) relied on by the petitioner are general in nature and the same do not deal with the recruitment and therefore, the petitioners are not entitled to any relief.
I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the material available on record.
The respondents, in the stipulation, made reference to the judgment in the case of Ranjana Kumari v. State of Uttrakhand & Ors. : (2019)15 SCC 664 and thereafter has observed that those married into the State, would not be entitled to the benefit of OBC, SC, ST & EWS category. The said stipulation made by the respondents in the advertisement is ex facie contrary to the very scheme of EWS reservation as compared to the reservation provided to OBC, SC & ST and the dictum of the Hon'ble (Uploaded on 20/11/2025 at 04:49:55 PM) (Downloaded on 20/11/2025 at 07:24:43 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:50208] (3 of 4) [CW-20072/2025] Supreme Court in the case of Ranjana Kumari (supra), which apparently has no application to reservation meant for EWS category.
The circulars of the State, inter-alia, after observing that the Central Government has provided for reservation in educational institution and services to the extent of 10% for EWS category candidates and for issuance of certificate to the woman married within the State, it was stipulated as under :-
"दू सरा यदि विवाहित महिला की उसके मूल राज्य में उसकी पैतृक जाति सामान्य वर्ग में है तथा उसका विवाह राजस्थान राज्य के किसी आरक्षित वर्ग के व्यक्ति से हुआ है तो भी वह राजस्थान राज्य में सामान्य वर्ग (अर्थात अनुसूचित जाति, जनजाति व अन्य पिछड़ा वर्ग के अतिरिक्त) में मानी जाये गी, एवं ऐसे आर्थिक कमजोर वर्ग (EWS) के व्यक्ति को निर्धारित मापदण्डों के अनुसार Income & Asset Certificate पाने के हकदार होगें।"
The stipulation is specific, wherein they have been held entitled to issuance of EWS certificate.
Once, the State itself in its Circular dated 16.08.2021 has ordered for issuance of EWS certificate to eligible woman married within the State, the stipulation in the advertisement dated 31.12.2021 essentially is contrary to the said circular and cannot debar the candidates like petitioners, who are otherwise entitled to the benefit of reservation provided to the EWS category candidates.
The submissions made in the reply pertaining to estoppal and the fact that the Circulars dated 10.02.2020 & 16.08.2021 (Annex.11 to CWP No.7512/2022) are general in nature, have no substance, inasmuch as, once it is found that the stipulation in the advertisement is ex facie contrary to the scheme of EWS reservation and the respondents' own circular, the petitioners cannot be debarred from claiming the benefits based on the plea of estoppal.
Further as noticed herein-before the Circular dated 16.08.2021 is very specific, wherein the same starts with reference to the benefits available to the EWS category candidates for employment / services etc. and therefore, it cannot be said that the circular is general in nature and does not apply to recruitments.
In view of the above, the writ petitions are allowed. The respondents are directed to consider the candidature of the petitioners in EWS category and in (Uploaded on 20/11/2025 at 04:49:55 PM) (Downloaded on 20/11/2025 at 07:24:43 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:50208] (4 of 4) [CW-20072/2025] case, they are otherwise eligible and fall within the cut- off meant for EWS category candidates, they be accorded appointment on the post of Teacher Grade-III (Level-I).
The petitioners would be entitled to all consequential benefits from the date the persons lower in merit to the petitioners were accorded appointment. However, the petitioners would be entitled to the monetary benefits from the date of actual appointment. Needful may be done within a period of four weeks."
4. Following the above ratio, the present writ petition is allowed. The respondents are directed to consider the candidature of the petitioner in the EWS category, if she is otherwise eligible and falls within the cut off for the EWS category candidates and consequently accord appointment on the post of Teacher Grade-III (Level-I) Subject English. The petitioner would also be entitled to all consequential benefits from the date the persons lower in merit to the petitioner was accorded appointment. However, the petitioner would be entitled to the monetary benefits from the date of actual appointment. The said exercise shall be done within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of this order.
5. All pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.
(MUNNURI LAXMAN),J 171-BhumikaP/-
(Uploaded on 20/11/2025 at 04:49:55 PM) (Downloaded on 20/11/2025 at 07:24:43 PM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)