Pradesh vs The State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Secretary, Education

Judgment

1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Secretary, Education Department, Govt. Of Rajasthan, Government Secretariat, Jaipur.

2. Rajasthan Staff Selection Board, Through Its Secretary, Agriculture Management Institute Building, Durgapura, Jaipur, Rajasthan.

3. Rajasthan Staff Selection Board, Through Its Chairman, Agriculture Management Institute Building, Durgapura, Jaipur, Rajasthan. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s)

: Mr. Ram Pratap Saini with Mr. Amir Khan For Respondent(s) : Mr. Gopal Krishan Sharma, AGC Mr. Nalin Narayan for Board HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND SHARMA Order 25/08/2025

2. Issue notice to the respondents. Mr. Gopal Krishan Sharma, AGC accepts notices on behalf of respondents.

3. Core question involved in the instant writ petition as to whether certificate of having special disability issued under the provisions of the Right of The Persons With Difficulty Act, 2015 by [2025:RJ-JP:33505] (2 of 6) [CW-12491/2025] any authority situated outside the territory of the State of Rajasthan, can be considered for the purposes of appointment in the State of Rajasthan or not.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the issue is no more res integra and has been decided in the case of Manish Chauhan Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors., 2024 (3) WLC 32 where the Division Bench of this Court has observed as under:- respondent particularly, "1. The petitioner has preferred the present writ petition being aggrieved with the action of the respondents, No.2- Commissioner of College Education, who has refused to give appointment to the petitioner, though after finding him meritorious and eligible, the Rajasthan Public Service Commission had recommended his name. 2. The facts narrated in a nutshell are that the petitioner had vied for the post of Assistant Professor (Mathematics) for one post out of 34 which was kept reserved to Specially Abled Person-(H.I. category) in the advertisement dated 18.12.2020. 3. The petitioner submitted his application form as a PH candidate along with requisite statutory certificates in support of him being a person with hearing impairment. 4. The Rajasthan Public Service Commission finding the petitioner to be meritorious and eligible, called him for document verification and then, recommended his name for appointment. 5. It is asserted by the petitioner that the petitioner was the only successful candidate in his category, (Hearing Impaired) and pursuant recommendation made to the State Government, the respondent No.3 called all the persons mentioned in the list appended with the communication dated 08.09.2022, including the petitioner, whose name was mentioned at serial No.33. 6. It is the contention of the petitioner that the petitioner despite appearing in counseling was not provided posting though other candidates have been provided posting/appointment orders. 7. Being aggrieved of such action of the respondents, the petitioner has approached this Court. The matter was heard on various occasions by this Court and vide proceedings dated 11.11.2022; 21.11.2022; 23.11.2022 and 06.12.2022, the Court prima-facie found the petitioner’s stand to be legit. Lately, on 15.12.2022, this Court has issued the following direction: [2025:RJ-JP:33505] (3 of 6) [CW-12491/2025] “2. No rule or law has been brought to the notice of the Court, which impeaches petitioner's eligibility, simply because he happens to be specially abled person (hearing impaired) from Uttar Pradesh. 3. The State's stand is clearly arbitrary and without any reason and rhymes. 4. The State is therefore, directed to issue appointment order to the petitioner on or before 31.12.2022, if he is otherwise eligible.” 8. In furtherance of the directions so issued, the State Government has passed a speaking order dated 05.01.2023 and rejected petitioner’s candidature, inter alia, observing that the petitioner hails from Uttar Pradesh and thus, not entitled for reservation in the State of Rajasthan. 9. Copy of the speaking order dated 05.01.2023 submitted by the learned Additional Advocate General is taken on record. 10. Mr. Khileree, learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the respondents’ stand that the petitioner who belongs to Uttar Pradesh, is not entitled for benefit of reservation as a person with disability being a horizontal reservation is ex- facie illegal and untenable. 11. It was argued that aspect as to whether a person belongs to the State or other than the State of Rajasthan is relevant only in cases of caste based reservation. So far as other reservations which do not depend upon castes are concerned, a candidate cannot be denied his right simply because he is from outside the State of Rajasthan. 12. Learned counsel navigated the Court through the relevant Rules (Rajasthan Rights of Persons With Disabilities Rules, 2018) so also the terms of advertisement and argued that there is nothing which restricts or denies the rights of a candidate belonging to State other than State of Rajasthan to claim benefit of reservation under the Rules of 2018. 13. Mr. Manish Vyas, learned Additional Advocate General on the other hand submitted that if the benefit of reservation under the Rules of 2018 is accorded to the petitioner, it will be against the interest of the person with disabilities of the State of Rajasthan. He added that as the reservation of PH category is also vertical reservation, the principles applicable to caste based reservation, will equally apply to the PH category reservation. 14. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 15. Indisputably, the petitioner has claimed reservation under the Rules of 2018. A perusal of the substantive provision contained in Rule 5 of the Rules of 2018, which reads thus:- Vacancies- (1) In every “5.Reservation of establishment 4% of the vacancies of direct recruitment in the cadre shall be reserved for persons [2025:RJ-JP:33505] (4 of 6) [CW-12491/2025] or class of persons with benchmark disabilities according to the section 34 of the Act. In the posts identified for each disability by the Government of India under section 33 and such reservation shall be treated as horizontal reservation and the vacancies for persons with benchmark disabilities shall be maintained as a separate class: Provided that where the nomenclature of any post in the State Government is different from the post in Government of Indian or nay post in the State Government does not exist in any department of the Government of India, the matter shall be referred to the Committee constituted under rule 6 fro identification of the equivalent post in the State Government. The Committee shall identify the equivalent post on the basis of nature of job and responsibility of each post. (2) Reservation in posts identified for one or more categories,- (a) If a post is identified suitable only for one category of disability, reservation in that post shall be given to persons with that disability only; (b) Reservation of 4% shall not be reduced in such cases and total reservation in the post will be given to persons suffering from the disability for which it has been identified; (c) If in case the post is identical suitable for two categories of disabilities, reservation shall be distributed between persons with those categories equally, as far as possible. (3) Maintenance of Rosters,- (a) All establishments shall maintain a separate 100 point roster register for determining/effecting reservation for the persons with benchmark disabilities. (b) The register shall have cycle of 100 points and each cycle of 100 points shall be divided into four blocks, comprising the following points; 1st Block- Point No.1 to point No.25 2nd Block- Point No.26 to point No.50 3rd Block- Point No.51 to point No.75 4th Block- Point No.76 to point No.100 The above block shall be earmarked and reserved for persons with benchmark disabilities- one point for each of the three categories of benchmark disabilities mentioned in clauses (a), (b) and (c) and one point for categories of benchmark disabilities mentioned in clauses (d) and (e) of sub-section(1) of section 34. (c) All the vacancies shall be entered in the relevant roster register which shall be maintained by the head of the establishment. (d) After all the 100 points of the roster are covered, a fresh cycle of 100 points shall start.” 16. A perusal of Rule 5 of the Rules of 2018 leaves no room for [2025:RJ-JP:33505] (5 of 6) [CW-12491/2025] ambiguity that the reservation for PH category is a horizontal reservation and it has no nexus with the residence of a person. 17. The residence of a person is significant or relevant in the case of caste based reservation, because the Constitutional Provision and notification issued thereunder requires a person to be a resident of that State in order to claim caste based reservation. It is the backdrop of the Constitutional Provision so also in light of catena of decisions of Hon’ble the Supreme Court and this Court, that a person residing out of the State cannot claim caste based reservation in the State of Rajasthan. However, in absence of any such stipulation in the Constitution or under the Rules of 2018, the State cannot deny a candidate of a State other than the State of Rajasthan to claim benefit of reservation under the Rules of 2018. 18. Almost similar situation came up for consideration before a coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Amar Kumari vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7512/2022), where the issue was in relation to a candidate belonging to EWS – Economically Weaker Section and this Court has held that a female migrating to State of Rajasthan is entitled for reservation for consideration of her candidature under EWS category. 19. In the instant case also, the petitioner has been denied appointment solely on account of him being resident of Uttar Pradesh. 20. According to this Court, the State’s action is not only illegal and contrary to Rules of 2018 but also against the federal structure of the State and violation of Article 16(2) of the Constitution of India. The State’s action amounts to denial of appointment on the basis of residence of a person, which has been held to be illegal by Hon’ble the Supreme Court in catena of decision including the judgment dated 17.07.2001 rendered in the case of Ganga Ram Moolchandani vs. State of Rajasthan & ors. [Appeal (Civil) No. 6469 of 1998] (2001) 6 SCC 89. 21. As an upshot of the discussion foregoing, the present writ petition is allowed; the impugned communication dated 05.01.2022 is hereby quashed. 22. The respondent- State is directed to issue appointment order to the petitioner within a period of four weeks from today, if he is otherwise eligible. 23. The petitioner shall be entitled for notional benefits from the date of issuance of select list, namely, 22.09.2022. 24. The stay petition also stands disposed of." [2025:RJ-JP:33505] (6 of 6) [CW-12491/2025]

5. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents is also in agreement of the fact that the issue has been decided by the Division Bench of this Court.

6. In the light of above, directions issued by the Division Bench of this Court in Manish Chauhan (supra), the writ petition filed by the petitioner is allowed. Order dated 15.09.2023 passed by Rajasthan Staff Selection Board, Jaipur is hereby quashed.

7. The respondents are directed to reconsider the candidature of the petitioner by ignoring the objection raised in the aforesaid order dated 15.09.2023 and in case the petitioners are otherwise eligible and entitled, and her name finds suitable place in the merit list, appointment be given to her on the post of Teacher Grade-III Level IInd subject-English pursuant to advertisement dated 16.12.2022. NEERU /16 (ANAND SHARMA),J