[2025:RJ-JP:7778] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 230/2025 Divya Sharma D/o Mahesh Chand Sharma, Aged About 32 Years, R/o Village Sirsai, Post Raysis, Tehsil Nadbai, District Bharatpur, Rajasthan. ----Petitioner Versus 1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Secretary, Medical, Health And Family Welfare Department, Rajasthan, Jaipur. 2. The Director, State Health And Family Welfare Institution, Jhalana, Institutional Area, Jaipur (Raj.) 3. The Director (Non-Gazette), Medical And Health Services, Rajasthan Swasthya Bhawan, Tilak Marg, C-Scheme, Jaipur ----Respondents S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 266/2025 Manju Rani D/o Om Prakash, Aged About 39 Years, R/o Nohar Barani, Block Nohar, District Hanumangarh, Rajasthan. ----Petitioner Versus 1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Secretary, Medical Health And Family Welfare Department, Rajasthan, Jaipur. 2. The Director, State Health And Family Welfare Institution, Jhalana, Institutional Area, Jaipur (Raj.) 3. The Director (Non- Gazette), Medical And Health Services Rajasthan Swasthya Bhawan, Tilak Marg, C- Scheme, Jaipur. ----Respondents S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 283/2025 Jagrati Sharma D/o Pukhraj Sharma W/o Ashish, Aged About 34 Years, R/o Village Semi Rada, Tehsil Chhoti Sadri, District Pratapgarh, Rajasthan. ----Petitioner [2025:RJ-JP:7778] (2 of 4) [CW-230/2025] Versus 1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Secretary, Medical, Health And Family Welfare Department, Rajasthan, Jaipur. 2. The Director, State Health And Family Welfare Institution, Jhalana, Institutional Area, Jaipur (Raj.) 3. The Director (Non-Gazette), Medical And Health Services Rajasthan Swasthya Bhawan, Tilak Marg, C- Scheme, Jaipur ----Respondents S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2162/2025 Manita Daughter Of Karan Singh, Wife Of Balwan Singh, Aged About 33 Years, Resident Of Village And Post Nauhand, Tehsil Rajgarh, District Churu. ----Petitioner Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary To The Government, Medical And Health Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur. 2. Director, State Institute Of Health And Family Welfare (Sihfw), Jhalana Doongri, Jaipur. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ram Pratap Saini with Mr. Aamir Khan Dr. Vibhuti Bhushan Sharma with Mr. Harshit Tiwari For Respondent(s) : Mr. Archit Bohra, AGC with Mr. Rahul Verma, Ms. Anjali Sharma & Mr. Prakhar Jain HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SAMEER JAIN Judgment 20/02/2025 1. The present matter pertains to recruitment on the post of Nursing Officer in pursuance to the vacancies issued vide advertisement dated 05.05.2023. [2025:RJ-JP:7778] (3 of 4) [CW-230/2025] 2. Considering the identical factual narrative, legal issues, and with consent of the various counsel representing the matters, the present bunch of petitions are adjudicated vide this judgment wherein, Divya Sharma Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 230/2025) is taken as the lead petition. It is made clear that the present judgment shall be made applicable on mutatis mutandis basis on the petitions connected herein. 3. At the outset, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the present petitions are filed seeking redressal of their grievances pertaining to consideration of EWS Certificate, and grant of reservation thereafter. It is further averred that the petitioners were residents of other states (for instance Haryana, Madhya Pradesh etc.) and after their marriage or any other circumstance(s), they have attached an EWS certificate in the name of their husband, who is/are domicile of the State of Rajasthan. However, the respondents have ousted the candidature of the petitioner(s) stating that the petitioners are either migrant candidates or their EWS certificate after the cut-off date. 4. At this nascent juncture, learned counsel has relied upon the judgment passed by Principal Seat, Jodhpur in Anita Devi Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. registered as S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.516/2025, and has submitted that the lis/controversy in hand is no more res integra and is already adjudicated by the relied upon judgment. 5. Contrary to the aforementioned, learned AGC has submitted that the concerned authorities will prefer an appeal assailing the relied upon dictum, however, has fairly conceded the [2025:RJ-JP:7778] (4 of 4) [CW-230/2025] fact that as on date the said controversy is decided in favor of the petitioners therein. 6. Heard and considered. 7. In light of the foregoing facts and circumstances, the present petition is allowed in terms of the dictum encapsulated in Anita Devi (Supra). Pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed of. (SAMEER JAIN),J JKP/237, 252, 259 & 420