Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Pooja Rani vs State Of Rajasthan on 21 September, 2022

Bench: Arun Bhansali

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7512/2022

Aman Kumari D/o Shri Jainarayan W/o Shri Ajit Singh, Aged About 34 Years, Resident Of Village Bhojan, Tehsil Rajgarh, District Churu.

----Petitioner Versus

1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, Panchayati Raj Department, Rajasthan, Jaipur.

2. The Director, Elementary Education, Bikaner.

3. The District Establishment Committee, Zila Parishad, Churu.

4. The District Establishment Committee, Zila Parishad, Jhalawar.

5. The Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Churu.

6. Payal Mittal D/o Hansraj Mittal, Through Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Jhalawar.

----Respondents Connected With S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6937/2022 Pooja Rani D/o Shri Rajender Singh W/o Shri Rajveer, Aged About 29 Years, Near Gogaji Temple, Ward No. 6, Rajgarh, District Churu.

----Petitioner Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, Panchayati Raj Department, Rajasthan, Jaipur.

2. The Director, Elementary Education, Bikaner.

3. The District Establishment Committee, Zila Parishad, Churu.

4. The District Establishment Committee, Zila Parishad, Jhalawar.

5. The Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Churu.

6. Payal Mittal D/o Hansraj Mittal, Through Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Jhalawar.

----Respondents

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Vikas Bijarnia. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Pankaj Sharma, AAG with Mr. Dhairyaditya Rathore.



           HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN BHANSALI



                                               (2 of 5)                  [CW-7512/2022]

                                         Order

21/09/2022

These writ petitions have been filed by the petitioners

aggrieved against Clause 12.2 (vi) of the advertisement dated

31.12.2021 for recruitment to the post of Teacher Grade-III

(Level-I) in relation to providing reservation to candidates in EWS

category.

Further relief has been sought that as the petitioners fall in

merit in the EWS category, they may be accorded appointment on

the post of Teacher Grade-III (Level-I).

It is, inter-alia, indicated in the petitions that the

advertisement dated 31.12.2021 was issued by the respondents

for recruitment to the post of Teacher Grade-III (Level-I). The

respondents had, inter-alia, provided reservation for the

candidates belonging to EWS category, however, in Clause 12.2

(vi) pertaining to the reservation, it was, inter-aia, indicated as

under :-

"VI. ekuuh; loksZPp U;k;ky; }kjk flfoy vihy la[;k [email protected] jatuk dqekjh o vU; cuke mRrjk[k.M jkT; o vU; esa ikfjr fu.kZ; fnukad 01-11-2018 ,oa ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; t;iqj }kjk Mh ch Lis"ky vihy la[;k [email protected] jkT; ljdkj o vU; cuke eatw ;kno o vU; esa ikfjr fu.kZ; fnukad 18-09-2018 ds vuqlkj jktLFkku jkT; esa fookg mijkUr izokflr gqbZ vkjf{kr oxZ ¼vkfFkZd :i ls detksj oxZ] vU; fiNM+k oxZ] vfr fiNM+k oxZ] vuqlwfpr tkfr] vuqlwfpr tutkfr ,oa lgfj;k vkfne tkfr½ dh efgyk vH;FkhZ dks muds oxZ ds vkjf{kr inksa dk ykHk ns; ugha gksxk] vr% ,slh efgyk vH;fFkZ;ksa dks lkekU; oxZ ds vUrxZr vkosnu djuk gksxkA"

(emphasis supplied)

The stipulation debarred, those woman candidates, who are

residents of the State due to marriage from getting the benefit,

inter-alia, of EWS category.

The petitioners applied and claimed their status as EWS and

as per provisional merit list, they were provisionally selected and

(3 of 5) [CW-7512/2022]

called for document verification. However, in the final merit list,

though the petitioners had obtained marks higher than the cut-off,

their names were not reflected in the said list.

The petitioners made inquiry and were told that in terms of

the stipulation made in the advertisement Clause 12.2(vi) as the

petitioners were born outside the State and were married in the

State and despite falling within the EWS category, they were not

entitled to benefit of reservation and were treated in the General

category and the marks obtained by them were less than the

General category candidates, the petitioners have not been

included in the final merit list.

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.

(4 of 5) [CW-7512/2022]

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 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 :-

"nwljk ;fn fookfgr efgyk dh mlds ewy jkT; esa mldh iSr`d tkfr lkekU; oxZ esa gS rFkk mldk fookg jktLFkku jkT; ds fdlh vkjf{kr oxZ ds O;fDr ls gqvk gS rks Hkh og jktLFkku jkT; esa lkekU; oxZ ¼vFkkZr vuqlwfpr tkfr] tutkfr o vU; fiNM+k oxZ ds vfrfjDr½ esa ekuh tk;sxh] ,oa ,sls vkfFkZd detksj oxZ ¼ EWS½ ds O;fDr dks fu/kkZfjr ekin.Mksa ds vuqlkj Income & Asset Certificate ikus ds gdnkj gksxsaA"

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

(5 of 5) [CW-7512/2022]

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