[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Indra vs State Of Rajasthan (2026:Rj-Jd:5380) on 27 January, 2026
[2026:RJ-JD:5380]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 24886/2025
Indra D/o Shri Bhagirath W/o Shri Ramesh Kumar, Aged About
33 Years, R/o Chandurwali, 18 Ngc, Hanumangarh, Rajasthan.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary Social Justice And
Empowermernt Deparment Governmetn Of Rajasthan.
2. The Secretary Department, Personnel Secretariat Jaipur.
3. The Disttcct Coolector, Hanumagarh.
4. The Sub Division Officer, Tibbi District Hanumagarh.
5. The Tehsildar Tibbi, District Hanumangarh.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sourabh Soni
Mr. Deepak Kankar
For Respondent(s) : Mr. S.R. Paliwal
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL BENIWAL
Order
27/01/2026
1. The matter comes upon an application (I.A. 01/2026)
seeking early hearing of the case.
2. At the request made by learned counsel for the parties, the
matter is finally decided.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner at the outset submits that
the controversy raised in the present writ petition is similar to the
one raised in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.14185/2025
(Priyanka Vs. State of Rajasthan and Ors.) decided on
30.07.2025. The Co-ordinate Bench of this Court disposed of the
said writ petition while relying upon the judgment passed in writ
(Uploaded on 30/01/2026 at 05:43:23 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:5380] (2 of 4) [CW-24886/2025]
petition being S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.9180/2025 (Sunita
Rani Vs. State of Rajasthan and Ors.) decided on 26.05.2025.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the present
writ petition may also be disposed of in the same terms as
Priyanka (supra). The order dated 30.07.2025 passed in said
writ petition is reproduced herein below:
"1. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits
that the controversy in question rests covered
by the judgment passed by this Court in S.B.
Civil Writ Petition No.9180/2025; Sunita
Rani Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (decided
on 26.05.2025).He, however submits that the
only distinguishing factor in the present petition
is that the present petitioner is a Scheduled
Caste candidate, who applied in the General
(EWS) category.
2. Learned counsel for the respondent-
Department does not refute the above
submission and agrees that the present issue
would be covered by the said judgment.
3. In the case of Sunita Rani (supra), it
was observed and held as under:
"2. Learned counsel for the petitioner
submits that the respondents have
erroneously declined to issue the EWS
certificate in favour of the petitioner solely
on the premise that she has an OBC
certificate issued by the State of Haryana
whereas as per circular dated 20.10.2023
(Annexure-9), any woman who migrates to
the State of Rajasthan after marriage,
although would not be entitled for the
benefit qua OBC category but then would
definitely been titled for issuance of an EWS
(Uploaded on 30/01/2026 at 05:43:23 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:5380] (3 of 4) [CW-24886/2025]
certificate as a General category candidate,
if she belongs to the EWS category.
3. Learned counsel for the respondent-State
is not in a position to refute the above
submission in terms of circular dated
20.10.2023 (Annexure-9).
4. It is an admitted position that the
petitioner has migrated to the State of
Rajasthan after her marriage. It is also an
admitted position that she has been denied
the issuance of an EWS certificate solely on
the premise that her OBC category
certificate was issued by the State of
Haryana. Furthermore, it is an admitted
position that the petitioner applied for the
EWS certificate considering herself to be a
General category candidate.
5. Circular dated 20.10.2023 (Annexure-9)
provides asunder:
ÞvU; jkT; dh efgyk dks vkschlh izek.k&i= dh
vk/kkj ij jktLFkku esa fdlh Hkh HkrhZ esa vkschlh
oxZ dk vkj{k.k ns; ugha gS] ijarq vkschlh
izek.k&i= ds vk/kkj ij mls vkj{k.k ds vykok
vU; ykHk izkIr gks ldrs gSaA vr% vU; jkT; dh
dksbZ vkschlh ;qorh jktLFkku esa fdlh
vkschlh ;qod ls 'kknh djrh gS vkSj mlus
jktLFkku esa vkschlh dk izek.k&i= ugha cuok;k gS
rks mls jktLFkku esa lkekU; oxZ dh ekurs gq, bZ-
MCY;w-,l- dk izek.k&i= tkjh fd;k tk ldrk gSA
,slh ;qorh dks bZ-MCY;w-,l- dk izek.k&i= ds
vk/kkj ij HkfrZ;ksa esa bZ-MCY;w-,l- vkj{k.k dk ykHk
fey ldrk gSA
vU; jkT;ksa ds vkjf{kr oxksZa ds ,sls vH;FkhZ
tks fookgksijkar jktLFkku jkT; ds ewy fuoklh cu
x;s gSa] dks bZ-MCY;w-,l- vkj{k.k ds laca/k rnuqlkj
dkjZokbZ dh tk,Aß
(Uploaded on 30/01/2026 at 05:43:23 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:5380] (4 of 4) [CW-24886/2025]
6. In view of the above specific Clause, the
present writ petition is disposed of with a
direction to the respondent authorities to
consider the application (Annexure-5) of the
petitioner as filed for issuance of an EWS
certificate. If the petitioner complies with all
the other conditions as prescribed for
issuance of an EWS certificate, she be issued
the same in accordance with law within a
period of four weeks from now. The earlier
rejection of the application would not
preclude the competent authority from
reconsidering the application."
4. In view of the above, the present writ petition is
disposed of in the same terms and conditions as in the case
of Sunita Rani (supra).
5. Stay petition and pending applications, if any, stand
disposed of.
5. Learned counsel for the respondents vehemently opposes
the submission made on behalf of the petitioner, however, is not in
a position to refute the fact that the issue raised in the present
writ petition is identical to the one adjudicated in the case of
Priyanka (supra).
6. In view of the submissions made, the present writ petition is
disposed of in the same terms as was decided in the case of
Priyanka (supra).
7. Pending application(s), if any, also stand(s) disposed of.
(SUNIL BENIWAL),J
241-Ashutosh/-
(Uploaded on 30/01/2026 at 05:43:23 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
