PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI,J. - (1.) Learned counsel for the parties agree that the controversy has been decided by this Court in Rao Sulochana Kumar v. State of Rajasthan and Ors. (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 222/2018) on 10.01.2018 . The order reads as under: "1. The petitioner has preferred this writ petition for the following reliefs "(a) By an appropriate writ, order or direction, the respondents may be directed to give benefit of reservation to the petitioner under OBC-Widow category by considering the certificate Annex.6 dated 22.11.2017 issued by the concerned Development officer, Panchayat Bhiloda, District Arawalli (Gujarat). (b) By an appropriate writ, order or direction, the respondents may kindly be directed to appoint the petitioner on the post of Patwari under OBC-Widow category in the respondent department. (c) Any other appropriate writ, order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may kindly be passed in favour of the petitioner. (d) Writ petition filed by the petitioner may kindly be allowed with costs." 2. The factual matrix necessary for just adjudication of the case is that the petitioner participated in the selection process for, appointment on the post of Patwari initiated vide advertisement dated 04.11.2015. Petitioner belongs to OBC widow category. The cut-off marks for OBC widow category was 49.51 mark's and the petitioner secured 50.61 marks, thus, was admittedly entitled for being given appointment. Counsel for the petitioner has drawn attention of Court to select list (Annex.15) wherein petitioner's name figure at Sr. No. 67, however, she was denied appointment on count of her OBC certificate being issued three years prior and that being from the State of Gujarat. Counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment of this Court given in case of Mukesh Kumari v. State of Rajasthan, reported in 2016(1) WLC (Raj.) UC 611 , the relevant paras of reads as follows : 6. Admittedly, the petitioner applied for the post of ANM pursuant to the advertisement dated 26.2.2013. She at the time of applying, filled in the category of Schedule Caste. The petitioner had submitted a Caste Certificate, which had been issued by the Tehsildar Bhadara on 21.8.2012, wherein it was mentioned that the petitioner Mukesh Kumari w/o Balveer Singh resident of Beedbhadra, District Hanumangarh, whose caste is Bawari and this certificate had been issued after due verification from the Tehsildar at Rewadi (Haryana). A perusal of the said document shows that the authority concerned had issued this Schedule Caste Certificate after getting the fact verified from Tehsildar Rewadi. Once the said certificate came to be issued which shows that the petitioner who was resident of Rewadi prior to her marriage, was of a Schedule Caste, as recognised in the State of Rajasthan, there was no occasion for treating the candidatures of the petitioner in the General Category. In the case reported as Smt. Archana Ruhela v. The State of Rajasthan and Ors., S.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No. 123/2006 decided on 11.12.2006 , it was held as under:- "If the petitioner is eligible as a candidate from the OBC Category whether on the basis of her caste as per birth or by marriage within the State of Rajasthan, she falls within the category of OBC and could have been denied consideration being in merit amongst the general category of candidates. There is no disputes that amongst the OBC candidates she having been found in order of merit, her name has been recommended by RPSC to state for appointment as Medical Officer. It is now for the State of Rajasthan to consider offering the appointment to her and it is for the State of Rajasthan to act on that recommendation. It cannot refuse to act on that recommendation in 4 the absence of any cogent reasons having nexus to denial of such appointment." 7. The insistence of the respondents that the Certificate produced cannot be taken into consideration, since Clause 4(iv) specifies that only those married women would be given the benefit of reservation in case their father's name/residence was reflected in the Certificate and had been issued by the Government of Rajasthan, cannot be sustained specially when a woman who has migrated from another State resides with her husband in Rajasthan and for all purposes, Rajasthan becomes her domicile. 8. Clause 4(iv) of the Advertisement dated 26.2.2013 reads as under:- HINDI MATTER Meaning thereby a married woman belonging to Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe category would be given the benefit of reservation on production of a Certificate issued by the Government of Rajasthan which should reflect the name of her father/residence. In the instance case, the petitioner is a married woman who initially lived in a different State and after marriage had settled in Rajasthan. Therefore, this stipulation cannot be made strictly applicable in the case of a married woman who after marriage and migration becomes a domicile of the State of Rajasthan. It is feasible for the Tehsildar of the area concerned, (i.e. in the State of Rajasthan) to issue a certificate pertaining to woman's caste reflecting name of her father since it would then necessarily be prior to her marriage. Caste is by birth and in case she is bom to a particular caste, after migration she would retain her caste even after her marriage. The circulars relied upon do pertain to a situation of where a reserved category person marries and settles in Rajasthan. Thus the reliance of circulars is of no relevance to the case in hand. 9. In D.B. Civil Special Appeal (W) No. 142/2009-Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Ajmer v. Rekha Soni and Anr. decided on 1.2.2010 , the Division Bench upheld the order passed by learned Single Judge in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6862/2007-Rekha Soni v. State of Rajasthan and Anr. . Holding that the candidates who were originally, before marriage, born in the OBC category and that the same OBC category was available in the State of Rajasthan as well and if the State of Rajasthan had issued certificate to this effect, the candidature could be rejected merely on account of the fact that the candidate was born in the State of Rajasthan and it would effect her status of OBC in the State. 10. In Mrs. Sahendra Bai and Ors. v. R.P.S.C. and Anr., 2008 (4) WLC (Raj.) 252 , the question came up for consideration, as to whether a married woman who belongs to a State other than the State of Rajasthan prior to her marriage and who was getting the reservation in her State, is entitled to get benefit of reservation for the purpose of getting employment in the State of Rajasthan. The learned Single Judge, after considering several judgments, held that in case of a married lady, if she is treated in a particular reserved category before her marriage and her caste is treated to be in the reserved category, even in the State where she has migrated by virtue of her marriage, there is no reason to deny her the benefit of reservation. Bunch of the writ petitions laid by Mrs. Sahendra Bai and ors. came to be disposed of by issuance of a direction to the State authorities to process the application of the petitioners about genuineness of the Certificate issued and also held that in case before her marriage, she was getting the benefit of reservation in a particular reserved category in her parental State, after her marriage, in case her caste is treated to be in different reserved category in the State of Rajasthan, in such case, the certificate issued by the authorities of the State of Rajasthan shall have binding effect, as now the petitioner can be said to be permanent residence of the State of Rajasthan by virtue of marriage. 11. In the present case, the petitioner had produced a caste certificate with her husbands name issued by the State of Rajasthan after due verification by the Tehsildar Rewadi. Thus by placing reliance upon the judgment referred to above, it is held that the petitioner who was belonging to the Scheduled Caste before her marriage and subsequently, also had a certificate issued by the Tehsildar at Bhadara is entitled to be considered in the Scheduled caste category and the State acted arbitrarily in rejecting her candidature. 12. Resultantly, the above noted writ petition is allowed and the respondents are directed to consider the case of the petitioner in the Scheduled Caste Category as per her merit and in case her name finds place in merit, appointment be offered to her."............. 3. Counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the judgment given in case of Mukesh Kumari (supra) has been affirmed by Division Bench of this Court in D.B. Civil Special Appeal (W) No. 93/2017 (State of Rajasthan and Ors. v. Mukesh Kumari) and other complected matters, on 30.3.2017 . Weekly Law Notes (p. 27), dt. 21.6.2018 4. Learned counsel for the respondents is not in a position to dispute the aforesaid judgments. 5. On perusal of afore-cited judgments, facts of the case and after hearing learned counsel for the parties, this Court is of the opinion that the petitioner being OBC widow and has secured more than the cutoff in her category and has also produced OBC certificate and admittedly now she been married in Rajasthan in a OBC family. Her caste is admittedly that of OBC in both incoming and outgoing States, therefore, she is entitled to claim reservation as prescribed in law, hence, the writ petition is allowed in terms of the precedent laws and the respondents are directed to consider case of petitioner accordingly within a period of thirty days from today."
(2.) In view of the above, the present writ petition is disposed of with direction to the respondents to decide the case of the petitioner in light of the aforementioned precedent law by passing a speaking order within a period of 31 days from today. Petition Disposed of.;