Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Parmila vs State Of Rajasthan (2024:Rj-Jd:40290) on 27 September, 2024
Author: Vinit Kumar Mathur
Bench: Vinit Kumar Mathur
[2024:RJ-JD:40290]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 16132/2024
Parmila D/o Shri Bharat Singh W/o Shri Mukesh Kumar, Aged
About 31 Years, R/o VPO Mangla, Post Modawasi, 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
27/09/2024
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
[2024:RJ-JD:40290] (2 of 4) [CW-16132/2024]
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:-
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
[2024:RJ-JD:40290] (3 of 4) [CW-16132/2024]
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
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 though has 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
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 have 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).
[2024:RJ-JD:40290] (4 of 4) [CW-16132/2024]
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).
8. The order has been passed based on the submissions made
in the petition, the respondents would be free to examine the
veracity of the submissions made in the petition and only in case
the averments made therein are found to be correct, the petitioner
would be entitled to the relief.
(VINIT KUMAR MATHUR),J
30-Shahenshah/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
