State Of Rajasthan vs Seema Rani (2026:Rj-Jd:7705-Db) on 11 February, 2026
inkinccorporation@gmail.com
Rajasthan High Court – Jodhpur
State Of Rajasthan vs Seema Rani (2026:Rj-Jd:7705-Db) on 11 February, 2026
Author: Pushpendra Singh Bhati
Bench: Pushpendra Singh Bhati
[2026:RJ-JD:7705-DB]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 365/2025
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary Department
Of Medical And Health Science (Group-Ii) Government Of
Rajasthan, Jaipur.
2. Director (Non Gazetted), Medical Health And Family
Welfare, Rajasthan, Jaipur.
3. The Director, State Institute Of Health And Family Welfare
(Sihfw), Department Of Health, Jaipur.
4. Chief Medical And Health Officer, Jalore.
----Appellants
Versus
Uganta Kanwar W/o Shri Mukesh Singh, Aged About 34 Years, R/
o Ward No. 17, Bissau, District Jhunjhunu Presently Working At
Phc Bhavrani Bcmo Aahore, District Jalore, Rajasthan.
----Respondent
Connected With
D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 1248/2024
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Its Additional Chief
Secretary, Medical And Health Services, Government
Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. The Director (Non Gazetted), Medical, Health And Family
Welfare Department, Health Bhawan, Rajasthan, Jaipur.
3. The Director, State Institute Of Health And Family Welfare
(Sihfw), Jhalana Doongri, Ghat Ki Guni, Jaipur 302004
----Appellants
Versus
Punita Rani D/o Shri Bhagirath Sharma, W/o Shri Ram Sharma,
Resident Of Lalji Ki Bawari, Gangori Chawk, Tehsil Deedwana,
District Deedwana Kuchaman (Raj.)
----Respondent
D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 485/2025
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary Medical And
Health Department, Government Of Rajasthan,
Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. The Director, State Institute Of Health And Family Welfare
Jhalna Institutional Area, Near Doordarshan Kendra,
(Uploaded on 25/02/2026 at 04:37:46 PM)
(Downloaded on 27/02/2026 at 09:09:00 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:7705-DB] (2 of 27) [SAW-365/2025]
Jaipur.
----Appellants
Versus
Parmila D/o Shri Rajbir W/o Shri Kuldeep, Aged About 43 Years,
R/o Vpo Dhanothi Bari, Tehsil Sidhmukh District Churu,
Rajasthan.
----Respondent
D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 489/2025
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary Medical And
Health Department Government Of Rajasthan,
Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. The Director, State Institute Of Health And Family Welfare
Jhalana Institutional Area, Near Doordarshan Kendra,
Jaipur.
----Appellants
Versus
Seema Rani D/o Shri Jeet Singh W/o Shri Pravin Kumar, Aged
About 38 Years, R/o Vpo Deengli Post Thirpali Bari, Tehsil
Rajgarh, District Churu, Rajasthan.
----Respondent
D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 508/2025
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary Medical And
Health Department, Government Of Rajasthan,
Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. The Director, State Institute Of Health And Family Welfare
Jhalna Institutional Area, Near Doordarshan Kendra,
Jaipur
----Appellants
Versus
Babita Kumari D/o Shri Rajpal, W/o Shri Pardeep, Aged About 36
Years, R/o Vpo Suratpura, Tehsil Rajgarh, District Churu,
Rajasthan.
----Respondent
D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 646/2025
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary Medical And
Health Department, Government Of Rajasthan,
Secretariat, Jaipur.
(Uploaded on 25/02/2026 at 04:37:46 PM)
(Downloaded on 27/02/2026 at 09:09:00 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:7705-DB] (3 of 27) [SAW-365/2025]
2. The Director, State Institute Of Health And Family Welfare
Jhalana Institutional Area, Near Doordarshan Kendra,
Jaipur
----Appellants
Versus
Babli Kumari D/o Ram Kumar W/o Ashok Kumar Saharan, Aged
About 33 Years, Vpo Paharsar, Tehsil Rajasthan, District Churu,
Rajasthan.
----Respondent
D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 705/2025
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary Medical And
Health Department Government Of Rajasthan Secretariat
Jaipur.
2. The Director, State Institute Of Health And Family Welfare
Jhalana Institutional Area Near Doordarshan Kandra
Jaipur
----Appellants
Versus
Vijay Laxmi D/o Shri Hari Kishan W/o Shri Sunil Kumar, Aged
About 34 Years, Village Kaman Post Office Bhojan Tehsil Rajgarh
District Churu Rajasthan
----Respondent
D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 718/2025
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Principal Secretary
Medical And Health Services, Government Secretariat,
Jaipur.
2. Director (Non-Gazetted), Medical Health And Family
Welfare Department, Health Bhawan Rajasthan, Jaipur.
3. The Director, State Institute Of Health And Family Welfare
(Sihfw), Jhalana Doongri Ghat Ki Guni, Jaipur 302004.
----Appellants
Versus
Rina Kunwar Rajput D/o Shri Jagdish Singh Rajput, W/o Shri
Yogendra Singh, Aged About 28 Years, R/o Village/ Post
Gordhanpura, Asnawar, District Jhalawar, Presently Residing At
C/o Shri Swaroop Singh, Village/ Post Ransi Gaon, Tehsil Bilara,
District Jodhpur (Raj.).
(Uploaded on 25/02/2026 at 04:37:46 PM)
(Downloaded on 27/02/2026 at 09:09:00 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:7705-DB] (4 of 27) [SAW-365/2025]
----Respondent
D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 721/2025
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, Department
Of Medical And Health Science (Group-Ii), Government Of
Rajasthan, Jaipur.
2. Director, (Non-Gazetted), Medical, Health And Family
Welfare, Rajasthan, Jaipur
3. The Director, State Institute Of Health And Family Welfare
(Sihfw), Department Of Health, Jaipur.
----Appellants
Versus
Anita Devi W/o Karmpal, Aged About 34 Years, Resident Of Aam
Chok, Bas Chanani, Churu, Rajasthan - 331023.
----Respondent
D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 780/2025
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary, Medical And
Health Department, Government Of Rajasthan
Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. The Director, State Institute Of Health And Family
Welfare, Jhalna Institutional Area, Near Doordarshan
Kendra, Jaipur.
----Appellants
Versus
Kamlesh S/o Shri Jaivir Singh W/o Shri Naresh Kumar, Aged
About 35 Years, Vpo Gagor, Post Office Dokwa, Tehsil Rajgarh,
District Churu, Rajasthan.
----Respondent
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Narendra Singh Rajpurohit, AAG
assisted by
Ms. Aditi Sharma, AAAG
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Yashpal Khileree
Mr. Vikas Bijarnia with
Mr. Punit Choudhary
Mr. Sushil Bishnoi
Mr. Lucky Rajpurohit
Mr. Puna Ram Sen
(Uploaded on 25/02/2026 at 04:37:46 PM)
(Downloaded on 27/02/2026 at 09:09:00 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:7705-DB] (5 of 27) [SAW-365/2025]
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP SHAH
Judgment
Reportable
11/02/2026
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 :
“VI. 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{kr oxZ 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”
(Uploaded on 25/02/2026 at 04:37:46 PM)
(Downloaded on 27/02/2026 at 09:09:00 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:7705-DB] (6 of 27) [SAW-365/2025]
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.
(Uploaded on 25/02/2026 at 04:37:46 PM)
(Downloaded on 27/02/2026 at 09:09:00 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:7705-DB] (7 of 27) [SAW-365/2025]
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 :-
“nwljk ;fn fookfgr efgyk dh mlds ewy jkT; esa mldh iSr`d tkfr lkekU;
oxZ esa gS rFkk mldk fookg jktLFkku jkT; ds fdlh vkjf{kr oxZ ds O;fDr ls gqvk gS rks
Hkh og jktLFkku jkT; esa lkekU; oxZ ¼vFkkZr vuqlwfpr tkfr] tutkfr o vU; fiNM+k oxZ
ds vfrfjDr½ esa ekuh tk;sxh] ,oa ,sls vkfFkZd detksj oxZ (EWS) ds O;fDr dks
fu/kkZfjr ekin.Mksa ds vuqlkj Income & Asset Certificate ikus ds gdnkj
gksxsaA”
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
estoppel 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
(Uploaded on 25/02/2026 at 04:37:46 PM)
(Downloaded on 27/02/2026 at 09:09:00 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:7705-DB] (8 of 27) [SAW-365/2025]
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
estoppel.
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.”
2. The learned Additional Advocate General submits that
although no appeal was filed against the judgment passed in
Aman Kumari‘s case and the same was acted upon, still this court
while considering a question involved in the case of ‘State of
Rajasthan v. Babli Kumari’ D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.646/2025
(part of the present bunch), vide its order dated 21.05.2025
framed following questions for its consideration:
“6. Following three issues arise for consideration are:-
(i) Whether the order passed in the case of Aman Kumari vs.
State of Rajasthan & Ors. based on correct law ?
(Uploaded on 25/02/2026 at 04:37:46 PM)
(Downloaded on 27/02/2026 at 09:09:00 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:7705-DB] (9 of 27) [SAW-365/2025]
(ii) Whether in view of the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court
in (2019) 15 Supreme Court Cases 664, the respondent could
claim benefit of reservation in the migrating State ?
(iii) Whether the petition was otherwise barred as the writ
petitioner did not challenge the specific terms and conditions of
advertisement and participated in the process of selection ?”
3. The above mentioned issues are thus required to be
adjudicated upon.
4. He further submits that there is inconsistency in law
regarding reservation in relation to the fact that whenever a
person seeks to extend the benefit of reservation from one State
to another State, on account of migration, such benefit cannot be
granted to the concerned person.
5. Learned Additional Advocate General also submits that the
Hon’ble Apex Court, in Ranjana Kumari (2019) 15 SCC 664),
dismissed the petition on the ground that reservation benefits are
not available to migrated persons in the State to which they have
migrated. It is submitted that the advertisement contained
specific terms and conditions, and unless those terms and
conditions were challenged, the petitions could not have been
entertained.
6. Learned Additional Advocate General further submits that the
circular dated 10.02.2020 provides only for issuance of the EWS
certificate but does not provide for grant of reservation to the
migrant female candidates of other State. Another relevant
circular dated 16.08.2021 also does not provide for grant of
reservation to migrant female candidates of other State. The
explanation made in circular dated 10.02.2020 also provides that
(Uploaded on 25/02/2026 at 04:37:46 PM)
(Downloaded on 27/02/2026 at 09:09:00 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:7705-DB] (10 of 27) [SAW-365/2025]
status of EWS relates back to the family of candidate when she
was born and in ‘State of Rajasthan vs. Smt. Manju Yadav’
(DB/SAW/1116/2018) decided on 18.09.2018 it has been held
issuance of any certificate does not entitle any person for
reservation in public employment and these facts are not
considered in Aman Kumari‘s (supra) case. So, the decision in
Aman Kumari‘s (supra) case is not a good law and same is liable
to be distinguished.
7. Learned Additional Advocate General refers to these
judgments: Ranjana Kumari v. State of Uttarakhand, reported in
(2019) 15 SCC 664; Marri Chandra Shekhar Rao v. Seth G.S.
Medical College, reported in (1990) 3 SCC 130; Action Committee
on Issue of Caste Certificate to SCs/STs v. Union of India,
reported in (1994) 5 SCC 244; Bir Singh v. Delhi Jal Board,
reported in (2018) 10 SCC 312; State of Rajasthan Vs. Manju
Yadav in D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 1116/2018. Relevant paras
of these judgments are reproduced here:
Ranjana Kumari (Supra):
“4. Two Constitution Bench judgments of this
Court in Marri Chandra Shekhar Rao v. Seth G.S.
Medical College [Marri Chandra Shekhar Rao v.
Seth G.S. Medical College, (1990) 3 SCC 130 : 1
SCEC 382] and Action Committee on Issue of Caste
Certificate to SCs/STs v. Union of India [Action
Committee on Issue of Caste Certificate to SCs/STs
v. Union of India, (1994) 5 SCC 244] have taken
the view that merely because in the migrant State
the same caste is recognised as Scheduled Caste,
the migrant cannot be recognised as Scheduled
Caste of the migrant State. The issuance of a caste
certificate by the State of Uttarakhand, as in the
present case, cannot dilute the rigours of the
Constitution Bench judgments in Marri Chandra(Uploaded on 25/02/2026 at 04:37:46 PM)
(Downloaded on 27/02/2026 at 09:09:00 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:7705-DB] (11 of 27) [SAW-365/2025]Shekhar Rao [Marri Chandra Shekhar Rao v. Seth
G.S. Medical College, (1990) 3 SCC 130 : 1 SCEC
382] and Action Committee [Action Committee on
Issue of Caste Certificate to SCs/STs v. Union of
India, (1994) 5 SCC 244] “
Marri Chandra Shekhar Rao (Supra):
“13. It is trite knowledge that the statutory and
constitutional provisions should be interpreted
broadly and harmoniously. It is trite saying that
where there is conflict between two provisions,
these should be so interpreted as to give effect to
both. Nothing is surplus in a Constitution and no
part should be made nugatory. This is well settled.
See the observations of this Court in
Venkataramana Devaru v. State of Mysore [1958
SCR 895, 918 : AIR 1958 SC 255] , where
Venkatarama Aiyer, J. reiterated that the rule of
construction is well settled and where there are in
an enactment two provisions which cannot be
reconciled with each other, these should be so
interpreted that, if possible, effect could be given to
both. It, however, appears to us that the expression
‘for the purposes of this Constitution’ in Article 341
as well as in Article 342 do imply that the
Scheduled Caste and the Scheduled Tribes so
specified would be entitled to enjoy all the
constitutional rights that are enjoyable by all the
citizens as such. Constitutional right, e.g., it has
been argued that right to migration or right to
move from one part to another is a right given to all
— to Scheduled Castes or Tribes and to non-
scheduled castes or tribes. But when a Scheduled
Caste or Tribe migrates, there is no inhibition in
migrating but when he migrates, he does not and
cannot carry any special rights or privileges
attributed to him or granted to him in the original
State specified for that State or area or part
thereof. If that right is not given in the migrated
State it does not interfere with his constitutional
right of equality or of migration or of carrying on his
trade, business or profession. Neither Article 14,
16, 19 nor Article 21 is denuded by migration but(Uploaded on 25/02/2026 at 04:37:46 PM)
(Downloaded on 27/02/2026 at 09:09:00 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:7705-DB] (12 of 27) [SAW-365/2025]he must enjoy those rights in accordance with the
law if they are otherwise followed in the place
where he migrates. There should be harmonious
construction, harmonious in the sense that both
parts or all parts of a constitutional provision should
be so read that one part does not become nugatory
to the other or denuded to the other but all parts
must be read in the context in which these are
used. It was contended that the only way in which
the fundamental rights of the petitioner under
Articles 14, 19(1)(d), 19(1)(e) and 19(1)(f) could
be given effect to is by construing Article 342 in a
manner by which a member of a Scheduled Tribe
gets the benefit of that status for the purposes of
the Constitution throughout the territory of India. It
was submitted that the words “for the purposes of
this Constitution” must be given full effect. There is
no dispute about that. The words “for the purposes
of this Constitution” must mean that a Scheduled
Caste so designated must have right under Articles
14, 19(1)(d), 19(1)(e) and 19(1)(f) inasmuch as
these are applicable to him in his area where he
migrates or where he goes. The expression “in
relation to that State” would become nugatory if in
all States the special privileges or the rights granted
to Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes are carried
forward. It will also be inconsistent with the whole
purpose of the scheme of reservation. In Andhra
Pradesh, a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe
may require protection because a boy or a child
who grows in that area is inhibited or is at
disadvantage. In Maharashtra that caste or that
tribe may not be so inhibited but other castes or
tribes might be. If a boy or a child goes to that
atmosphere of Maharashtra as a young boy or a
child and goes in a completely different atmosphere
or Maharashtra where this inhibition or this
disadvantage is not there, then he cannot be said to
have that reservation which will denude the children
or the people of Maharashtra belonging to any
segment of that State who may still require that
protection. After all, it has to be borne in mind that(Uploaded on 25/02/2026 at 04:37:46 PM)
(Downloaded on 27/02/2026 at 09:09:00 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:7705-DB] (13 of 27) [SAW-365/2025]the protection is necessary for the disadvantaged
castes or tribes of Maharashtra as well as
disadvantaged castes or tribes of Andhra Pradesh.
Thus, balancing must be done as between those
who need protection and those who need no
protection, i.e., who belong to advantaged castes or
tribes and who do not. Treating the determination
under Articles 341 and 342 of the Constitution to be
valid for all over the country would be in negation
to the very purpose and scheme and language of
Article 341 read with Article 15(4) of the
Constitution.”
Action Committee on Issue of Caste Certificate
to Scs/Sts vs. Union of India (Supra):
“16. We may add that considerations for specifying a
particular caste or tribe or class for inclusion in the
list of Scheduled Castes/Schedule Tribes or
backward classes in a given State would depend on
the nature and extent of disadvantages and social
hardships suffered by that caste, tribe or class in
that State which may be totally non est in another
State to which persons belonging thereto may
migrate. Coincidentally it may be that a caste or
tribe bearing the same nomenclature is specified in
two States but the considerations on the basis of
which they have been specified may be totally
different. So also the degree of disadvantages of
various elements which constitute the input for
specification may also be totally different. Therefore,
merely because a given caste is specified in State A
as a Scheduled Caste does not necessarily mean that
if there be another caste bearing the same
nomenclature in another State the person belonging
to the former would be entitled to the rights,
privileges and benefits admissible to a member of
the Scheduled Caste of the latter State “for the
purposes of this Constitution”. This is an aspect
which has to be kept in mind and which was very
much in the minds of the Constitution-makers as is
evident from the choice of language of Articles 341
and 342 of the Constitution. That is why in answer to(Uploaded on 25/02/2026 at 04:37:46 PM)
(Downloaded on 27/02/2026 at 09:09:00 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:7705-DB] (14 of 27) [SAW-365/2025]a question by Mr Jaipal Singh, Dr Ambedkar
answered as under:
“He asked me another question and it was this.
Supposing a member of a Scheduled Tribe living in a
tribal area migrates to another part of the territory of
India, which is outside both the scheduled area and
the tribal area, will he be able to claim from the local
Government, within whose jurisdiction he may be
residing the same privileges which he would be
entitled to when he is residing within the scheduled
area or within the tribal area? It is a difficult question
for me to answer. If that matter is agitated in
quarters where a decision on a matter like this would
lie, we would certainly be able to give some answer
to the question in the form of some clause in this
Constitution. But so far as the present Constitution
stands, a member of a Scheduled Tribe going outside
the scheduled area or tribal area would certainly not
be entitled to carry with him the privileges that he is
entitled to when he is residing in a scheduled area or
a tribal area. So far as I can see, it will be practicably
impossible to enforce the provisions that apply to
tribal areas or scheduled areas, in areas other than
those which are covered by them….”
Relying on this statement the Constitution Bench
ruled that the petitioner was not entitled to
admission to the medical college on the basis that he
belonged to a Scheduled Tribe in the State of his
origin.
17. Lastly the Constitution Bench referred to the
cleavage in the views of different High Courts on the
interpretation of Articles 341 and 342 of the
Constitution and the consequential orders passed by
the Government of India and the State Governments.
It referred to the two decisions of the Gujarat High
Court as well as the decision of the Karnataka High
Court which place the interpretation canvassed before
us by Mr Raju Ramachandran. The other side referred
to the decisions of the Orissa High Court in K. Appa
Rao v. Director of Posts & Telegraphs, Orissa [AIR
1969 Ori 220 : 35 Cut LT 55] , the decision of the Full
Bench of the Bombay High Court in M.S. Malathi v.
(Uploaded on 25/02/2026 at 04:37:46 PM)
(Downloaded on 27/02/2026 at 09:09:00 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:7705-DB] (15 of 27) [SAW-365/2025]
Commissioner, Nagpur Division [AIR 1989 Bom 138 :
1988 Mah LJ 1041 : (1988) 90 Bom LR 532 (FB)] and
the decision of the Punjab & Haryana High Court in
V.B. Singh v. State of Punjab [ILR (1976) 1 P&H 769]
which take the contrary view canvassed before us by
the respondents. All these decisions were considered
by the Constitution Bench which agreed with the
latter view. It upheld the view expressed in the
communication dated 22-2-1985 and negatived the
challenge of the petitioner that the said view was
ultra vires Articles 14, 15, 16 or 21. It, however,
observed that in the facts and circumstances of the
case and having regard to the fact that the petitioner
student’s career was involved it directed the
authorities to consider whether the petitioner was a
‘Goudi’ and if yes, the institution may consider if he
can be allowed to complete his studies in the
institution. However, on the interpretation of the
relevant provisions of the Constitution this Court was
clear in its view that legally speaking he was not
entitled to admission in the Scheduled Tribe quota.
18. We are in respectful agreement with the above
view expressed by the Constitution Bench in the
aforesaid decision. All the points which were
canvassed before us by Mr Raju Ramachandran were
also canvassed by him in the said matter. They were
negatived by the Constitution Bench. Nothing has
been pointed out to persuade us to think that the view
taken by the Constitution Bench requires
reconsideration by a larger Bench. In fact we are in
complete agreement with the interpretation placed on
the various provisions of the Constitution, in particular
Articles 341 and 342 thereof, in the said judgment.
We, therefore, see no merit in this writ petition and
dismiss the same. However, we make no order as to
costs.”
Bir Singh (Supra):
“34. Unhesitatingly, therefore, it can be said that a
person belonging to a Scheduled Caste in one State
cannot be deemed to be a Scheduled Caste person in
relation to any other State to which he migrates for
the purpose of employment or education. The(Uploaded on 25/02/2026 at 04:37:46 PM)
(Downloaded on 27/02/2026 at 09:09:00 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:7705-DB] (16 of 27) [SAW-365/2025]expressions “in relation to that State or Union
Territory” and “for the purpose of this Constitution”
used in Articles 341 and 342 of the Constitution of
India would mean that the benefits of reservation
provided for by the Constitution would stand confined
to the geographical territories of a State/Union
Territory in respect of which the lists of Scheduled
Castes/Scheduled Tribes have been notified by the
Presidential Orders issued from time to time. A person
notified as a Scheduled Caste in State ‘A’ cannot claim
the same status in another State on the basis that he
is declared as a Scheduled Caste in State ‘A’.”
State of Rajasthan vs. Manju Yadav & Ors. (supra):
“4. Females outside the State of Rajasthan on migrating
to Rajasthan, post marriage may not be entitled to the
benefit ofreservation in public employment in the State
of Rajasthan onaccount of being a member of a SC or
ST or OBC in another State.”
8. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondents has
drawn the attention of this Court towards to the Circular dated
10.02.2020, which is an exhaustive circular providing reservation
under the EWS category. The relevant portion of the Circular dated
10.02.2020 reads as follows:
“प्रकरण के समु चित परीक्षणोपरान्त इस सम्बन्ध में यह स्पष्ट किया जाता है कि आर्थिक
रूप से कमजोर वर्ग के अन्य राज्यों से स्थानान्तरित होकर राजस्थान राज्य में स्थाई रूप से
निवास कर रहे व्यक्तियों को उनके स्वयं अथवा उनकी संतानों के उपयोगार्थ आर्थिक रूप
से कमजोर वर्ग का प्रमाण-पत्र जारी किया जावें , परन्तु इस संबंध में उक्त वर्ग के व्यक्ति
पूर्व में जिस सब्य से उसका संबंध है , अपने पूर्व निवास स्थान में अपनी व अपने परिवार
की वार्षिक आय / सम्पत्ति, यदि कोई हो एवं उससे वार्षिक आय के सम्बन्ध में वहां के
सक्षम अधिकारी जो उपखण्ड अधिकारी या समकक्ष स्तर का हो (सक्षम अधिकारी कनिष्ठ
होने की स्थिति में स्थानीय उपखण्ड द्वारा प्रतिहस्ताक्षरित) एक शपथ-पत्र प्रस्तुत करे गा।
राज्य में सक्षम अधिकारी द्वारा ऐसे स्थानान्तरित होकर आये व्यक्ति की पूर्व आय एवं
वर्तमान निवास स्थान की आय की संयुक्त रूप से गणना करते हुये नियमानुसार आर्थिक
रूप से कमजोर वर्ग का प्रमाण-पत्र जारी किया जायेगा।”
9. Learned counsel for the respondents further draws the
attention of this Court towards the Circular dated 16.08.2021,
wherein it has been clarified that the migrated class, particularly if
it belongs to a reserved category, shall also be treated as falling
(Uploaded on 25/02/2026 at 04:37:46 PM)
(Downloaded on 27/02/2026 at 09:09:00 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:7705-DB] (17 of 27) [SAW-365/2025]
within the ambit of the Economically Weaker Sections (EWS), in
accordance with the prescribed norms. The relevant portion of the
Circular dated 16.08.2021 reads as follows:
“इस सम्बन्ध में प्रथगतया यहां यह स्पष्ट किया जाता है कि स्थाई रूप से निवासरत् का
तात्पर्य गाननीय सर्वोच्च न्यायालय ने इस प्रकार स्पष्ट किया है कि Action
Cornmittee on issue only to those who have ordinary
residence of the place within the jurisdiction of competent
authority. Ordinary resident means residence with is not for
the purpose of the service, employment. education,
confinement in jail etc. in short it means permanent
residence and not a temporary residence. यहाँ यह भी उल्लेखनीय है
कि किसी भी व्यक्ति की जाति का निर्धारण उसको पैतृक जाति से होता है अर्थात यदि
किसी व्यक्ति की जाति उसके नूल राज्य में सामान्य वर्ग में है (अर्थात अनुसूचित
जाति, जनजाति व अन्य पिछडा वर्ग के अतिरिक्त) तो राजस्थान राज्य में भी यह
सामान्य वर्ग में ही मानी जाये गी।, दु सरा यदि विवाहित महिला की उसके मूल राज्य में
उसकी पैतृक जाति सामान्य वर्ग में है तथा उसका विवाह राजस्थान राज्य के किसी
आरक्षित वर्ग के व्यक्ति से हुआ है तो भी यह राजस्थान राज्य में सामान्य वर्ग (अर्थात
अनुसूचित जाति, जनजाति व अन्य पिछडा वर्ग के अतिरिक्त) में जानी जाये गी एवं
ऐसे आर्थिक कमजोर वर्ग (EWS) के व्यक्ति को निर्धारित मापदण्डो के अनुसार
Income & Asset Certificate पाने के हकदार होगे। अतः उपरोक्त तथ्यों के
परिपेक्ष्य में राज्य के समस्त सक्षम अधिकारियों को यह निर्देशित किया जाता है कि
ऐसे प्रकरणों में कार्मिक विभाग द्वारा जारी उन्त परिपत्र 10.02.2020 के अनुसरण
में ऐसे माईग्रेट पात्र व्यक्तियों को निर्धारित मापदण्डों के आधार पर नियमानुसार
Income & Asset Certificate जारी करावें।”
10. Learned counsel for the respondents also draws the attention
of this Court towards the judgment in Aman Kumari (supra),
wherein the learned Single Bench of this Court, while considering
the Circulars dated 10.02.2020 and 16.08.2020, allowed the writ
petition.
11. Learned counsel for the respondents draws the attention of
this Court towards the Condition No. 6 of the advertisement dated
19.05.2023, which requires both a Domicile Certificate and an
EWS Certificate for the purpose of claiming reservation under the
EWS category. Paragraph 6 of the advertisement reads as follows:
“माननीय सर्वोच्च न्यायालय द्वारा दीवानी अपील संख्या 1085/2013 में
पारित निर्णय दिनां क 30.08.2018 एवं माननीय रजस्थान उच्च न्यायालय द्वारा
डी.बी. विशेष अपील (रिट् स) संख्या 1116/2018 में पारित निर्णय दिनां क
18.09.2018 के अनुसार राजस्थान राज्य के बाहर अर्थात अन्य राज्य की महिला
जो विवाहोपरान्त राजस्थान राज्य की मूल निवासी बन जाती है तो उसे सार्वजनिक
नियोजन में एससी/एसटी/ओबीसी / एमबीसी वर्ग में आरक्षण का लाभ नही ं दिया
जायेगा। इसलिए उन्हें सामान्य वर्ग के अन्तर्गत ही आवेदन करना होगा। अन्य राज्य(Uploaded on 25/02/2026 at 04:37:46 PM)
(Downloaded on 27/02/2026 at 09:09:00 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:7705-DB] (18 of 27) [SAW-365/2025]की किसी भी श्रेणी की महिला का राजस्थान में विवाह होने के उपरान्त राजस्थान का
मूल निवास एवं EWS का प्रमाण पत्र प्रस्तुत करने पर उसे आर्थिक रूप से कमजोर
वर्ग श्रेणी के लिए पात्र माना जाये गा।”
12. The above mentioned advertisement has been issued by the
Rajasthan Staff Selection Board, Jaipur, under Advertisement No.
9 of 2025 and pertains to the recruitment for the post of Teacher.
13. Learned counsel for the respondents draws the attention of
this Court towards the Notification dated 20.10.2019, particularly
to the amendment introduced in Rule 2, being the Second
Amendment, which defines the ‘Reservation of vacancies for
Economically Weaker Sections (EWS)’. The explanation thereto is
reproduced as under:
2.Substitution of rule 8A: The existing
rule and regulation 8A of the Rajasthan Public
Service Commission (Ministerial and
Subordinate Service) Rules and Regulations,
1999 shall be substituted by the following,
namely;-
“8A. Reservation of vacancies for
Economical Weaker Sections:- Reservation
of vacancies for Economically Weaker Sections
shall be 10% in direct recruitment in addition
to the existing reservation. In the event of
non-availability of eligible and suitable
candidate amongst Economically Weaker
Sections in a particular year, the vacancies so
reserved for them shall be filled in accordance
with the normal procedure.
(Uploaded on 25/02/2026 at 04:37:46 PM)
(Downloaded on 27/02/2026 at 09:09:00 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:7705-DB] (19 of 27) [SAW-365/2025]Explanation: For the purpose of this
rule ‘Economically Weaker Sections’ shall
be the persons who are bonafide resident of
Rajasthan and not covered under the existing
scheme of reservations for the Scheduled
Castes, the Scheduled Tribes, the Backward
Classes, the More Backward Classes and
whose family has gross annual income below
rupees 8.00 lakh. Family for this purpose will
include the person who seeks benefit of
reservation, his/her parents and siblings below
the age of 18 years as also his/her spouse and
children below the age of 18 years. The
income shall include income from all sources
i.e. salary, agriculture, business, profession
etc. and it will be income for the financial year
prior to the year of application”
14. Learned counsel for the respondents further draws attention
of this Court towards the order dated 28.08.2012 pertaining to the
issuance of Domicile Certificates. Paragraph 4 of the said order
specifically deals with persons who have been married, clarifying
that such persons shall be considered as domicile. The relevant
portion of Paragraph 4 of the Domicile Order reads as follows:
क्र.सं. साक्ष्य साक्ष्य हे तु संलग्न दस्तावेज
4. उन महिलाओं की दशा में जो राजस्थान पति का मूल निवास प्रमाण पत्र
की मूल निवासी नहीं है और ऐसे व चुनाव पहचान पत्र/पासपोर्ट
व्यक्ति से विवाह कर लेती है जो /ड्र ाइविंग लाइसेंस / अन्य
राजस्थान का मूल निवासी है और जो फोटो पहचान पत्र तथा विवाह
उपने पति के साथ राजस्थान में रहती प्रगाण पत्र
है । सामान्यतया राजस्थान का मूल
निवासी मान ली जाये गी चाहे उसने(Uploaded on 25/02/2026 at 04:37:46 PM)
(Downloaded on 27/02/2026 at 09:09:00 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:7705-DB] (20 of 27) [SAW-365/2025]राजस्थान में अपने 10 वर्ष के निवासी
की शर्त पूरी न की हो.
15. Learned counsel for the respondents further draws attention
of this Court towards the judgment of the Hon’ble Division Bench
of the Himachal Pradesh High Court in Review Petition No. 47 of
2021, titled as State of H.P. & Ors. vs. Smt. Naveen Kumari,
decided on 04.09.2021. The relevant portion of the said order
reads as follows:
“11. Moreover, she establishes that upon her marriage in
Himachal Pradesh, she has provenly established the
requisite animus deserdendi, from the State of her origin
i.e. Punjab. Therefore, she becomes an ordinary resident of
Himachal Pradesh, as she has not migrated to Himachal
Pradesh rather solitarily for the purpose of service,
employment, and, education, rather has migrated on
account of her marriage in Himachal Pradesh with her
husband.
12. Emphasisingly, the settling of the conundrum with
regard to “ordinary resident and bonafide resident” is/are of
utmost importance. The meaning of the term “bonafide
resident” as defined under various pronouncements made
by different Courts, is, that of residence with a permanent
intention to reside, in the State concerned.
13. Now the intention to reside permanently, is to be
inferred from the circumstance of a particular caste. Since
various states including the State of Himachal Pradesh,
have framed rules for issuance of a bonafide certificate. The
Himachal Pradesh Rules, for issuance of a bonafide
certificate, prescribe that a person, who continuously
resides in Himachal Pradesh for 15 years, becomes entitled
for issuance of a bonafide certificate. If, a person
continuously for 15 years holds his residence at Himachal
Pradesh, it means that he has a permanent intention to
reside in Himachal Pradesh, and, hence evinces his animus
deserendi from the State of his origin. Consequently, a
person, who becomes a bonafide resident of Himachal
Pradesh, has definitely suffered and has become socially
disadvantaged, disadvantages whereof, arise from his(Uploaded on 25/02/2026 at 04:37:46 PM)
(Downloaded on 27/02/2026 at 09:09:00 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:7705-DB] (21 of 27) [SAW-365/2025]caste, given his for a minimum period of 15 years. rather
being permanently domiciled in H.P. Therefore, he cannot
be considered to be a migratee after 15 years, as, after the
afore period he becomes entitled, for the issuance of a
bonafide certificate, as per the rules. Consequently, if the
caste of his origin is by birth in the State of his origin, and,
is notified in the State where he is a bonafide resident, or is
permanently domiciled. Therefore, he becomes entitled to
receive an apposite caste certificate.
14. Consequently, as discussed above, when a person is
issued a bonafide certificate, it means that he is a
permanent resident of the State, for all intents and
purposes as he has intention to live permanently there,
and, he remains no more a migrant. Similarly, the petitioner
after her marriage no more remains a migrant, and, she for
all intents and purposes, is, now settled in the house of her
husband.”
16. Upon conjoint consideration of the questions proposed by the
Division Bench of this Court, this Court is of the firm opinion that
the State of Rajasthan has accorded the status of EWS to migrants
in terms of its Circulars dated 10.02.2020 and 16.08.2021,
wherein the procedure has been laid down for issuance of EWS
Certificates after obtaining a Domicile Certificate and assessing
the economic condition of the applicant. This Court is also of the
view that the order relating to Domicile Certificates, as prevalent
in the State of Rajasthan, specifically includes married women
who have migrated from another State and acquired domicile
status by virtue of marriage. It is further observed that the
decision in Ranjana Kumari (supra) pertained to reservation in
respect of a reserved category, whereas the EWS Certificate is
distinct in nature, being based solely on economic criteria. Since
the specifications for EWS are uniform across the country,
migration in this context is supported by the Constitution of India.
(Uploaded on 25/02/2026 at 04:37:46 PM)
(Downloaded on 27/02/2026 at 09:09:00 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:7705-DB] (22 of 27) [SAW-365/2025]
17. This Court finds that the EWS category is based upon the
economically weaker segment of society, and the nature of this
segment, does not change on account of migration. Categories
based on specific caste, religion, groups or social backwardness
require further identification and specification, whereas economic
backwardness is determined by uniform criteria applicable
throughout the State. Moreover, this Court is of the firm opinion
that once a married daughter has been granted domicile of a
particular State, on account of marriage, the benefits accruing to
the migrated family, particularly economic benefits ought to be
extended to her as well.
18. Reservation for Economically Weaker Section for the first
time was introduced by way of the 103rd Constitutional
Amendment Act, 2019, wherein other than the reservation based
upon social or educational backwardness, an affirmative action of
reservation was provided based upon economic condition of the
persons concerned. The above mentioned amendment to the
Constitution was challenged before the Constitution Bench. The
Apex Court, while dealing with the issue raised in this regard, in
the case of ‘Janhit Abhiyan vs. Union of India‘ reported in
(2022) SCC OnLine SC 1540, upheld the reservation and also
held that the reservation for economically weaker section is not to
be extended to the persons who are already getting the benefit of
reservation based upon their social or educational backwardness
i.e. the reservation covered under Article 15(4), 15(5) and 16(4)
of Constitution, while specifically treating the category of EWS as
a separate category, while emphasizing that it was created with
the goal of having an egalitarian society while counteracting
(Uploaded on 25/02/2026 at 04:37:46 PM)
(Downloaded on 27/02/2026 at 09:09:00 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:7705-DB] (23 of 27) [SAW-365/2025]
inequalities and bringing the economically weaker section into the
main stream of the society. The Central Government, for the
purpose of granting EWS reservation, had issued the office
memorandum dated 31.01.2019, providing for grant of 10%
reservation in direct recruitment in Civil posts and services under
the Government of India to the persons belonging to the EWS
category and to those who are not covered under the scheme of
the reservation for SC, ST and OBC categories.
19. The Government also specified the criteria for determining as
to who will belong to or be identified as EWS and fixed criteria for
the persons whose family had gross annual income below eight
lakhs to fall under EWS category. It was further specified that
income from all sources for the financial year prior to the year of
application is included. It was further specified that the property
held by a family would be clubbed while applying the criteria of
‘the land or property holding test’ to determine the EWS status.
The clarification further specified that not only the property
belonging to parents or siblings, but also of the spouse and the
children would be included for determining the property owned by
the family while assessing whether the person belongs to the EWS
category or not. For ready reference, the relevant portion of the
office memorandum dated 31.01.2019 is quoted as under:
“2. QUANTUM OF RESERVATION
The persons belonging to EWSs who, are not covered under
the scheme of reservation for SCs, STs and OBCs shall get
10% reservation in direct recruitment in civil posts and
services in the Government of India.
4 CRITERIA OF INCOME & ASSETS:
4.1 Persons who are not covered under the scheme of
reservation for SCs, STs and OBCs and whose family has
gross annual income below Rs.8.00 lakh (Rupees eight lakh(Uploaded on 25/02/2026 at 04:37:46 PM)
(Downloaded on 27/02/2026 at 09:09:00 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:7705-DB] (24 of 27) [SAW-365/2025]only) are to be identified as EWSs for benefit of reservation.
Income shall also include income from all sources i.e. salary,
agriculture, business, profession, etc. for the financial year
prior to the year of application.
Also persons whose family owns or possesses any of
the following assets shall be excluded from being identified as
EWS, irrespective of the family income:-
i. 5 acres of agricultural land and above;
ii. Residential at of 1000 sq ft. and above;
iii. Residential plot of 100 sq. yards and above in notified
municipalities;
iv. Residential, plot of 200 sq. yards and above in areas other
than the notified municipalities.
4.2. The property held by a “Family” in different locations or
different places/cities would be clubbed while applying the
land. or property holding test to determine EWS status.
4.3 The term “Family” for this purpose willinclude the person
who seeks benefit of reservation, his/her parents and siblings
below the age of 18 years as also his/her spouse and children
below the age of 18 years.”
20. Identical criteria has been incorporated by the State
Government, which is clear from the perusal of the notification
dated 20.10.2019 (quoted supra), wherein the criteria for
determining as to whether the persons belongs to EWS category
has been fixed, as person having gross annual income below
rupees eight lakhs and for the purpose of determining the
property, it has further been clarified that the property belonging
to parents and siblings as well as spouse and children shall also be
included. Thus, a combined analysis of the 103 rd Constitution
amendment as well as the criteria fixed for determination of EWS
will reveal that irrespective of the migration, the status of the
candidate is to be determined based upon the income of the
family and the family includes not only parents but the spouse
also, meaning thereby that if a person migrates from one State to
(Uploaded on 25/02/2026 at 04:37:46 PM)
(Downloaded on 27/02/2026 at 09:09:00 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:7705-DB] (25 of 27) [SAW-365/2025]
another post marriage, then the benefit of EWS can be attained by
him, in case the total income of the family including the income of
spouse, children, parents and siblings is below the threshold of
rupees eight lakhs. Rather, the State Government themselves
clarified by way of issuing the circular dated 10.02.2020 wherein,
in spite of migration from one State to another, the income
certificate shall be issued for determining as to whether the
person would qualify as EWS or not. However, the income of the
person concerned earning in the earlier State prior to migration
was also to be kept in mind for determining whether he/she falls
into the definition of EWS or not.
21. As far as the judgments relied upon by the learned counsel
for the respondent are concerned i.e. in the case of Ranjana
Kumari (supra), Action Committee (supra) or by the
Constitution Bench of Apex Court in Marri Chandra Shekhar Rao
(supra), the same pertains to reservation being granted to the
persons belonging to socially and educationally backward class of
citizens, more particularly SC & ST categories, wherein a specific
list has been provided for determining who shall belong to SC/ST
by way of Article 341 and 342 under the Constitution. The
consideration was that a person may be belonging to a category of
SC/ST in one particular State by looking to circumstances
prevailing in that State, but in the migrated state, same caste or
tribe may not be considered as a SC/ST correspondingly, and even
if considered, the circumstances for consideration are totally
different. The consideration by the Hon’ble Apex Court was,
particularly, with regard to the fact that upon migration, the
concerned person’s special right, which was attributed to him or
(Uploaded on 25/02/2026 at 04:37:46 PM)
(Downloaded on 27/02/2026 at 09:09:00 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:7705-DB] (26 of 27) [SAW-365/2025]
granted to him in the original State or part thereof, would prevail.
The Court also considered that the expression “in relation to that
State”, would become nugatory, if in all the States special
privileges or the rights granted to SC/ST are carried forward. It
was also observed that the same would be inconsistent with the
whole purpose of the scheme of reservation. Based upon the
same, the Hon’ble Apex Court held that the benefit of the
reservation cannot be extended post migration as stated (supra).
The same was pertaining to the reservation granted based upon
the social and educational backwardness, however, as far as EWS
is concerned, the same has been treated as separate category by
the Hon’ble Apex Court itself in Janhit Abhiyan vs. Union of
India‘ (supra), qua which there is no identical provision like
Article 341 and 342. Thus, the judgments relied upon by the
learned counsel for the respondent have got no application as far
as the case in hand is concerned.
22. In almost identical issue, with regard to non-grant of benefit
of being a resident of Tribal Sub-Plan (TSP) to a lady who was
married to a person residing within Tribal Sub-Plan, came up for
consideration before the Hon’ble Single Bench of this Court, in the
case of Smt. Twarita Gehlot v. State of Rajasthan & Ors. in
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.15540/2007 wherein, while dealing
with the issue of migration of a married lady who has come to
reside with her husband who is already a resident of a TSP area, it
was held that she cannot be denied the benefit that are available
to the TSP area in question. The above mentioned judgment was
challenged in appeal, wherein the appeal came to be disposed of
by way of order dated 04.01.2020 in D.B. Spl. App. Writ
(Uploaded on 25/02/2026 at 04:37:46 PM)
(Downloaded on 27/02/2026 at 09:09:00 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:7705-DB] (27 of 27) [SAW-365/2025]
No.576/2018 (State of Rajasthan & Ors. V. Smt. Twarita
Gehlot), in view of the fact that the State Government itself has
amended the definition of candidate of Tribal Sub-Plan area, by
way of notification dated 21.10.2019 extending the benefit of
reservation to women marring a resident of TSP area with effect
from 16.06.2013.
23. This Court finds that the judgment passed in the case of
Smt. Twarit Gehlot (supra) is applicable to the present case also
as the reservation for Economic Weaker Sections cannot be denied
to a person simply on the ground of migration from one State to
another, more particularly when while calculating the total income
of the family for the purpose of determining the status of
Economic Weaker Sections i.e. the maximum total income of
rupees eight lakhs, the income of the parents and the spouse as
well as children and the siblings is to be considered.
24. Accordingly, the appeals do not call for interference and are
hereby dismissed. The issue of migration as well as participation in
pursuant to the advertisement and post that laying a challenge to
the condition of the advertisement has rightly been dealt with by
the Hon’ble Single Judge in case of Aman Kumari‘s (supra). The
judgment passed by the Hon’ble Single Judge in the case of Aman
Kumari‘s (supra) is held to be correct and upheld.
25. All the pending applications are also disposed of.
(SANDEEP SHAH),J (DR.PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI),J
64-mohit & Raoof Khan/-
(Uploaded on 25/02/2026 at 04:37:46 PM)
(Downloaded on 27/02/2026 at 09:09:00 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
