Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Babli Kumari vs State Of Rajasthan (2024:Rj-Jd:39961) on 25 September, 2024
Author: Vinit Kumar Mathur
Bench: Vinit Kumar Mathur
[2024:RJ-JD:39961]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 15847/2024
Babli Kumari D/o Shri Ram Kumar W/o Shri Ashok Kumar
Saharan, Aged About 33 Years, R/o Vpo Paharsar, Tehsil Rajgarh,
District Churu, Rajasthan.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary, Medical And
Health Department, Government Of Rajasthan,
Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. The Director, State Institute Of Health And Family
Welfare, Jhalna Institutional Area, Near Doordarshan
Kendra, Jaipur.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sushil Bishnoi
Mr. Rahul Mandan
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Mukesh Dave, AGC
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINIT KUMAR MATHUR
Order
25/09/2024
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
controversy involved in the present case is squarely covered by
the judgment rendered by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court in
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.7512/2022 "Aman Kumari vs.
State of Rajasthan & Ors." and another connected matter
decided on 21.09.2022 in the following terms:-
"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
[2024:RJ-JD:39961] (2 of 3) [CW-15847/2024]
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:-
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 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
[2024:RJ-JD:39961] (3 of 3) [CW-15847/2024]
petitioners would be entitled to the monetary benefits from
the date of actual appointment.
Needful may be done within a period of four weeks."
3. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that the
petitioner has participated in the selection process and has not
raised the grievance before appearing in the selection process,
therefore, no indulgence should be granted to the petitioner.
4. Learned counsel for the respondents has though tried to
distinguish the case of the petitioner from the case of Aman
Kumari (supra) on the strength that the Circular dated
10.02.2020 (Annex.12) was made applicable only for those
persons who were residing in the State of Rajasthan and submits
that the arguments made by the counsel for the petitioner is
fallacious, however, the arguments of the counsel for the
respondents has already been taken note of in the judgment
rendered by this Court in the case of Aman Kumari (supra).
5. I have considered the submissions made at the Bar and have
gone through the relevant record of the case.
6. This Court is of the view that the controversy involved in the
present case is squarely covered by the judgment rendered by the
co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Aman Kumari
(supra).
7. The writ petition merits acceptance and the same is allowed
in terms of the order passed by this Court in the case of Aman
Kumari (supra).
(VINIT KUMAR MATHUR),J
114-/Arun P/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
