Raj HC holds married women from other States entitled to EWS reservation after acquiring domicile by marriage

Jaipur/Jodhpur: The Rajasthan High Court has held that married women who migrate to Rajasthan after marriage and acquire domicile are entitled to the benefit of reservation under the Economically Weaker Sections (EWS) category, and cannot be excluded merely on the ground that they were born in another State. The Division Bench comprising Justice Pushpendra Singh Bhati and Justice Sandeep Shah dismissed a batch of special appeals filed by the State and affirmed the entitlement of such candidates to be considered under the EWS quota.

The Court ruled that EWS reservation is fundamentally distinct from caste-based reservations under Articles 341 and 342 of the Constitution, as it rests solely on economic criteria. Once a woman acquires domicile in Rajasthan by marriage and satisfies the income and asset norms prescribed under State circulars, she cannot be denied EWS reservation on the ground of migration. Any clause in a recruitment advertisement inconsistent with binding State circulars and the EWS scheme is unenforceable.

The controversy arose out of Advertisement No. F-109(8)/SIHFW/MH-Recruit/FHW/2023/4850 dated May 19, 2023, issued for recruitment to the post of Health Worker (Female). The respondents, all married women, had migrated to Rajasthan after marriage and obtained domicile certificates. They applied under the EWS category, secured merit positions, and were provisionally selected.

However, at the stage of final consideration, their candidature was rejected on the ground that married women candidates who were originally residents of other States were not entitled to the benefit of EWS reservation. The rejection was based on clauses in the advertisement which treated such candidates as falling in the general category. Aggrieved, the candidates approached the High Court, and the learned Single Judge allowed their writ petitions by relying on earlier precedent, particularly Aman Kumari v. State of Rajasthan. The State carried the matter in appeal. WES

On behalf of the State, the Additional Advocate General contended that reservation benefits cannot travel across State boundaries and relied on Supreme Court judgments including Ranjana Kumari v. State of Uttarakhand, Marri Chandra Shekhar Rao, and Bir Singh, to argue that migrants are not entitled to reservation benefits in the migrated State. It was further argued that the circulars dated February 10, 2020 and August 16, 2021 only provided for issuance of EWS certificates and did not confer a right to reservation in public employment. The State also submitted that since the candidates participated in the recruitment process without challenging the advertisement conditions, they were estopped from questioning them later.

The respondents countered that EWS reservation stands on a different footing from caste-based reservations. They relied upon the State circulars of 2020 and 2021, which expressly permit issuance of EWS certificates to migrants, including married women, after assessing their combined income and assets. It was argued that once domicile is granted under Rajasthan rules, denial of EWS benefit would be arbitrary and contrary to the State’s own policy.

The Division Bench undertook a detailed analysis of constitutional provisions, State circulars, and precedent. It held that judgments dealing with SC/ST/OBC reservations and migration have no direct application to EWS reservation, which is based purely on economic disadvantage and not on social backwardness linked to a particular State.

The Court noted that the State of Rajasthan, through its circulars dated February 10, 2020 and August 16, 2021, has consciously extended the EWS framework to migrants, including married women, subject to fulfillment of domicile requirements and income criteria. The domicile rules of Rajasthan also expressly recognize women who acquire residence by marriage as domiciles of the State.

It was further held that once the State itself has framed a policy permitting such candidates to obtain EWS certificates, an advertisement clause contrary to that policy cannot be enforced to their detriment. The plea of estoppel was rejected, with the Court observing that participation in a selection process does not validate an illegal or unconstitutional condition.

Concluding that the learned Single Judge had correctly applied the law, the Division Bench dismissed all the appeals filed by the State. The authorities were directed to treat the respondents as EWS candidates and grant them appointment with all consequential benefits, subject to eligibility and merit, though monetary benefits were confined to the date of actual appointment.

Case Title

State of Rajasthan & Ors. vs. Uganta Kanwar & Ors.

Date of Order

11 February 2026

Advocates

For the Appellants (State of Rajasthan):

• Mr. Narendra Singh Rajpurohit, Additional Advocate General
• Assisted by Ms. Aditi Sharma, Additional Advocate General WES

For the Respondents:

• Mr. Yashpal Khileree
• Mr. Vikas Bijarnia
• Mr. Punit Choudhary
• Mr. Sushil Bishnoi
• Mr. Lucky Rajpurohit
• Mr. Puna Ram Sen

Judgments Relied Upon

• Ranjana Kumari vs. State of Uttarakhand, (2019) 15 SCC 664
• Marri Chandra Shekhar Rao vs. Seth G.S. Medical College, (1990) 3 SCC 130
• Action Committee on Issue of Caste Certificate to SCs/STs vs. Union of India, (1994) 5 SCC 244
• Bir Singh vs. Delhi Jal Board, (2018) 10 SCC 312
• State of Rajasthan vs. Manju Yadav, D.B. Special Appeal (Writ) No. 1116/2018 (decided on 18.09.2018)
• Aman Kumari vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors., S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7512/2022 (decided on 21.09.2022)