The stipulation in the recruitment advertisement excluding women married in the State from EWS benefits is contrary to the EWS reservation scheme and the State's circulars.

Order :

(REKHA BORANA, J.)

1. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the controversy in question rests covered by the judgment of a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court passed in Aman Kumari Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.; S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.7512/2022 & connected matter (decided on 21.09.2022).

2. Counsel for the respondent is not in a position to refute the above submission. However, he submits that if the petitioner files a representation, the respondent-authorities would definitely consider and decide the same in accordance with Aman Kumari’s case (supra) and if she is found to be covered by the said judgment, appropriate relief would be granted to her.

3. In Aman Kumari’ case (supra), it was observed and held as under:-

“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-alia, indicated as under :-

^^ekuuh; loksZPp U;k;ky; }kjk flfoy vihy la[;k 8425@2013 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 1116@2018 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{kroxZ 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 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 a