[2025:RJ-JD:50208]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 20072/2025 Rachna Rani W/o Shri Vidhyadhar, Aged About 32 Years, R/o Manakthedi, District Hanumangarh.

----Petitioner Versus

1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Secretary, Rural Development And Panchayati Raj Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat Jaipur.

2. The Director, Elementary Education Rajasthan, Bikaner.

3. The Rajasthan Staff Selection Board, Through Its Secretary, State Agriculture Management Institute Campus, Durgapura, Jaipur.

4. Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, District Barmer.

5. District Education Officer, (Headquarter), Elementary Education, Barmer.

----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Vishal Jangid For Respondent(s) : Ms. Meenal Singhvi &

Ms. Pratyksha Rajpurohit for Mr. Rajesh Panwar, AAG HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MUNNURI LAXMAN

Order

20/11/2025

1. The present writ petition has been filed challenging the action of the respondents in not giving appointment to the petitioner on the ground that the selection under Economically Weaker Section (EWS) category was not followed for the reason that she is originally a native of Punjab and she became as resident of Rajasthan after marriage.

2. Learned counsel for both parties submitted that by relying upon Clause 12.2 (vi) of the advertisement dated 31.12.2021 similar challenge was made in the case of Aman Kumari Vs. The State of Rajasthan & Ors. (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.

7512/2022) and connected writ petition. A Coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 21.09.2022 quashed such condition and allowed the consideration of such candidates.

3. Relevant paragraphs of the order dated 21.09.2022 passed in the case of Aman Kumari (supra) reads as follows:

“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 (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 :-

“दूसरा यदिद दि(cid:8)(cid:8)ादि(cid:9)त मदि(cid:9)ला की उसके मूल राज्य में उसकी पैतृक जादित सामान्य (cid:8)र्गti में (cid:9)ै तथा उसका दि(cid:8)(cid:8)ा(cid:9) राजस्थ