[2026:RJ-JP:12652] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12088/2020 Sushma D/o Shri Ashok Kumar W/o Shri Pravin Kumar, Aged About 25 Years, Resident Of Village Kohrana, Tehsil Behror, District Alwar (Rajasthan) ----Petitioner Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary, Panchayati Raj Department, Govt. Secretariat, Jaipur. 2. Director, Elementary Education Rajasthan, Bikaner. 3. Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Jhalawad. (Raj.) 4. District Education Officer, (Elementary), Jhalawad. (Raj.) ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ashok Bansal Mr. Pawan Sharma Mr. Ayush Bansal For Respondent(s) : Mr. Gopal Krishan Sharma, AGC Mr. Abhishek Paliwal for Mr. Dheeraj Tripathi, Dy. G.C. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR JAIN Order 25/03/2026 1. Instant writ petition is filed with following prayer:- I. By an appropriate writ, order or direction the respondents may kindly be directed to quash and set aside the order dated 28.09.2020 passed by respondent No.3 and further allow petitioner to do her work considering her merit in General caste category if benefit of OBC category could not be given and accordingly the petitioner may kindly be given posting and all benefits. II. By an appropriate writ, order or direction the termination order dated 28.09.2020 (Annexure-11) [2026:RJ-JP:12652] (2 of 4) [CW-12088/2020] may kindly be declared illegal and may kindly be quashed and set aside and further respondents may kindly be directed to consider the petitioner as eligible and meritorious candidate and accordingly posting may be given to the petitioner as per her merit. 2. Learned counsel for petitioner while referring order dated 29.01.2026 in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.403/2021 titled as Rekha Prajapat Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr. submits that the issue raised herein, has already been considered by this Hon'ble Court on the basis of ratio laid down in case of Jitendra Kumar Singh & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors. reported as (2010) 3 SCC 119 and further in case of Union of India Vs. Sanjeen Roy reported in 2025 INSC 1084. He submitted that petitioner was initially applied under the OBC Female Category, but she belongs to Haryana and if benefit of reservation is not extended to her, then her candidature was required to be considered in General Female Category. He also submitted that the petitioner was initially given appointment as OBC female candidate but later her appointment was cancelled vide order dated 28.09.2020 (Annexure-11). He also submitted that persons having lower marks in General Female Category were given appointment, thus petitioner is entitled to be considered and absorbed as a candidate of General Female Category. 3. Aforesaid contentions were not controverted by learned counsels appearing on behalf of respondents, but they submits that petitioner has claimed quota in OBC Female Category and Department has accordingly considered the case of petitioner, while issuing cancellation letter on 28.09.2020. [2026:RJ-JP:12652] (3 of 4) [CW-12088/2020] 4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material placed on record. 5. The facts of the case clearly indicate that pursuant to advertisement No.1/2018 dated 12.04.2018 for direct recruitment on the post of Teacher Grade-III Level-1 in non-TSP area under Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act, 1994. The petitioner has filed an application in OBC Female Category and after being selected, she was given an appointment, but noticing a fact that petitioner belongs to another State (Haryana) and not entitled to claim reservation in OBC Female Category, then her appointment was terminated by respondent on 28.09.2020. The petitioner has claimed that she is a meritorious candidate and secured 73.333% marks in Rajasthan Eligibility Examination Test (REET)-2017 and same is higher in merit in General Female Category, so she is entitled to be continued and absorbed in General Female Category, as laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Jitendra Kumar Singh & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. (supra) and further in case of Union of India & Ors. Vs. Sanjeev Roy (supra). 6. Having considered the fact that the petitioner has secured higher marks than last cut-off in General Female Category, therefore, she is entitled to be considered as General Female Category instead of OBC Female Category. There is no allegation of fraud, misrepresentation or concealment of fact on part of the petitioner, therefore, the impugned termination order is liable to be set-aside and petitioner is entitled for protection by treating her in the Category of General Female. Accordingly, the respondents are duty bound to place her in the merit and seniority as provided under the rules. [2026:RJ-JP:12652] (4 of 4) [CW-12088/2020] 7. In view of discussion made herein above, the writ petition is allowed and impugned order of termination dated 28.09.2020 is hereby quashed and set aside and respondents are directed to consider the candidature of petitioner in General Female Category and place her, as per her merit in the Category of General Female, strictly in accordance with her position in merit and applicable rules. The petitioner is entitled for all service benefits as available under the rules. 8. With aforesaid, the instant writ petition with pending application, if any, stands disposed of. (ASHOK KUMAR JAIN),J GAURAV /06