[2025:RJ-JP:35201] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.2333/2025 Sharwan Kumar S/o Late Hukum Chand, Aged About 52 Years, R/o Chuna Bhatta Road, Topdada, Ajmer, At Present Elected Member Of Nagar Nigam, Ajmer At Ward No. 59, Topdara Area, Nagar Nigam, Ajmer. ----Petitioner Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary, Social Justice And Empowerment Department, Jaipur (Raj). 2. State Of Rajasthan, Through Commissioner And Principal Secretary, Social Justice And Empowerment Department, Jaipur (Raj) 3. District Collector And Magistrate, City, Ajmer. 4. Additional Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Ajmer. 5. Joint Director, Social Justice And Empowerment Department, Ajmer. 6. Sub-Divisional Officer, Ajmer. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Mahendra Shandilya (through Video Conferencing) Mr. Aayush Agarwal For Respondent(s) : Mr. G.S. Gill, AAG assisted by Mr. Surya Pratap Singh Rajawat, Asst. GC Mr. Sumit Purohit for Mr. Kapil Prakash Mathur, AAG JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND Order 03/09/2025 1. Aggrieved by the order dated 27.01.2025 passed by District Collector, Ajmer by which the Other Backward Class Certificate (for short “OBC”) issued in favour of the petitioner has been cancelled. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is a bonafide resident of village Dhourmai, District Bharatpur [2025:RJ-JP:35201] (2 of 4) [CW-2333/2025] (Rajasthan) and he completed his education there, except the education pursuant to Class 10th and 12th and he is a bonafide resident of the State of Rajasthan by birth. Learned counsel submits that simply because the petitioner has undergone his studies of Class 10th and 12th from the State of U.P., he cannot be treated as bonafide resident of the that State. Learned counsel submits that the OBC certificate was issued to the petitioner on the basis of several documents issued by several competent authorities of the State of Rajasthan, but these facts were overlooked by the Collector while passing the order impugned, hence, interference of this Court is warranted. 3. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents opposes the arguments raised by counsel for the petitioner and submits that on the basis of the fabricated documents, the petitioner obtained the OBC certificate showing himself as bonafide resident of the State of Rajasthan rather the petitioner is a resident of that State of U.P. Learned counsel submits that considering all these facts and circumstances of the case, a decision was taken by the Collector and the OBC certificate issued in favour of the petitioner has rightly been cancelled, hence, interference of this Court is not warranted. 4. In addition, learned counsel for the respondents submits that the petitioner has an alternative efficacious remedy of filing an appeal against the order passed by the Collector before the State Level Committee pursuant to the guidelines issued by the Department of Social Justice and Empowerment dated 09.09.2015. Learned counsel submits that without availing the alternative statutory remedy of filing an appeal before the State [2025:RJ-JP:35201] (3 of 4) [CW-2333/2025] Level Committee, the petitioner has straightaway approached this Court by way of filing the instant writ petition. Learned counsel submits that disputed question of facts are involved in this writ petition, which can be adjudicated by the State Level Committee, hence, under these circumstances, interference of this Court is not warranted. 5. Heard and considered the submissions made at the Bar and perused the material available on record. 6. This Court is not going to examine the merits of the matter as to whether the petitioner is a bonafide resident of the State of Rajasthan or State of U.P. This matter is required to be adjudicated by the State Level Committee pursuant to the circular/guidelines issued by the Department of Social Justice and Empowerment. 7. As per Clause 7 of the aforesaid circular, the petitioner has alternative efficacious remedy of filing an appeal before the State Level Committee against the impugned order passed by the District Collector. 8. On this count alone, the writ petition stands disposed of granting liberty to the petitioner to file an appeal before the State Level Committee. In case, the petitioner prefers an appeal against the order passed by the Collector before the State Level Committee within a period of seven days, it is expected from the State Level Committee to hear and decide the appeal on its merits on the basis of the submissions and documents submitted by both the parties, expeditiously as early as possible, preferably within a period of three weeks thereafter ignoring the period of limitation. [2025:RJ-JP:35201] (4 of 4) [CW-2333/2025] 9. Stay application as well as all applications (pending, if any) also stand disposed of. (ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J Karan/60