[2025:RJ-JP:47767] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 18003/2025 Rahul Gupta, S/o Manoj Gupta, Aged About 30 Years, R/o 42, Ram Dwara, Ward No. 35 Vidisha, Madhya Pradesh. ----Petitioner Versus 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 For Respondent(s) : Mr. Narendra Choudhary Mr. Somil Sharma for Mr. Gopal Krishan Sharma, AGC HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR JAIN Order 25/11/2025 1. Learned counsel for petitioner while placing reliance upon judgment in case of Manish Chauhan Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. 2024 3 WLC 32 and followed in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13825/2025 Ramesh Kumar Yadav Vs. The State of Rajasthan & Ors. submits that the only objection raised to consider the candidature of present petitioner in category of PH is that the petitioner does not belong to State of Rajasthan, and he belong to other State. He also submits that after the judgment in [2025:RJ-JP:47767] (2 of 4) [CW-18003/2025] case of Manish Chauhan (supra), by the Division Bench the controversy has been put to rest and the matter be disposed of in light of judgment in case of Manish Chauhan (supra). 2. Issue notice to respondent(s). 3. Mr. Somil Sharma for Mr. Gopal Krishna Sharma, AGC accepts notice for respondent no.1 whereas Mr. Narendra Choudhary accepts notice for respondent nos. 2 and 3. 4. Office is directed to reflect name of Mr. Gopal Krishna Sharma, AGC and Mr. Narendra Choudhary as counsel for respondents. 5. Counsel for the parties are in agreement that the issue involved in the present matter is no longer res integra, as the issue involved in the present case has been decided in the matter of Manish Chauhan v. State of Rajasthan & Ors., where the Division Bench of this Court has observed as under:- “16. A perusal of Rule 5 of the Rules of 2018 leaves no room for 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 [2025:RJ-JP:47767] (3 of 4) [CW-18003/2025] this Court in the case of Amar Kumari vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (S.B. CivilWrit 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 ofRajasthan & ors. [Appeal (Civil) No. 6469 of1998] (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 ” 6. In view of the above consensus and in light of the directions issued by the Division Bench of this Court in Manish Chauhan (supra), the present writ petition is allowed, and the respondents are under an obligation to consider the candidature of petitioner, if fulfils the criterion otherwise. 7. The respondents are directed to consider the candidature of the petitioner by ignoring the objection about domicile of petitioner, in case the petitioners are otherwise found eligible and entitled, and his name finds suitable place in the merit list, appointment be given to him on the post of Teacher Grade-III Level IInd subject-English under General (LD/CP) PH category [2025:RJ-JP:47767] (4 of 4) [CW-18003/2025] (subject to benchmark disability, decided by a board) pursuant to advertisement dated 16.12.2022, if post is available and selection process has not been concluded as yet. 8. The writ petition and misc. application, if any, stands disposed of. (ASHOK KUMAR JAIN),J CHETNA BEHRANI /36