JUDGMENT :

1. The present controversy arises out of Advertisement No. F-109(8)/SIHFW/MH-Recruit/FHW/2023/4850 dated 19.05.2023, Health Worker Female, where the respondents succeeded on merits in the EWS category but were denied appointment on the ground that married women candidates cannot be given the benefit of the EWS category. All the impugned orders have been passed on issues which are already covered by the judgment passed in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7512/2022, Aman Kumari vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors., decided on 21.09.2022, which reads as follows:

“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 :

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 are general in nature and the same do not deal with the recruitment and therefore, the petitioners are not entitled to any relief.

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