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 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 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).
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.
