A significant clarification has emerged on the rights of women who migrate across state borders after marriage, affirming their entitlement to Economically Weaker Sections (EWS) benefits despite holding an Other Backward Class (OBC) certificate from another state. The High Court of Rajasthan has reinforced that such individuals cannot be denied EWS certification solely on the basis of their prior OBC status, provided they meet the income and asset criteria under the General category.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioner, Manju Kumari, a resident of Hanumangarh, Rajasthan, applied for an EWS certificate after migrating to Rajasthan following her marriage. She held an OBC certificate issued by the State of Haryana. The respondent authorities rejected her application, asserting that possession of an OBC certificate from another state disqualified her from EWS benefits under Rajasthan’s policy, regardless of whether she sought classification under the General category.
Procedural History
- 2025: Similar issue adjudicated in Sunita Rani v. State of Rajasthan, where the Court interpreted Circular No. 20.10.2023.
- 2025: In Poonam v. State of Rajasthan, the same legal position was reaffirmed by a coordinate bench.
- 2026: Petitioner filed this writ petition seeking issuance of EWS certificate, relying on the precedents set in the above cases.
Relief Sought
The petitioner sought a direction to the competent authorities to reconsider her EWS application and issue the certificate if she satisfied the income and asset criteria under the General category, without being barred due to her Haryana-issued OBC certificate.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether a woman who migrates to Rajasthan after marriage and holds an OBC certificate from another state can be denied an EWS certificate solely on the ground of that prior OBC status, when she explicitly applies as a General category candidate.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
Learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the binding precedent in Sunita Rani v. State of Rajasthan and Poonam v. State of Rajasthan, both of which interpreted Circular No. 20.10.2023. The circular explicitly states that while an OBC certificate from another state does not entitle the holder to OBC benefits in Rajasthan, it does not disqualify her from availing EWS benefits under the General category. Counsel emphasized that the circular was issued under the authority of the State Government and carried the force of law.
For the Respondent
The State did not oppose the petitioner’s submission. The respondents’ counsel conceded that the circular was unambiguous and that the petitioner’s case fell squarely within its scope. No counter-legal argument was advanced.
The Court's Analysis
The Court examined Circular No. 20.10.2023, which clearly distinguishes between entitlement to OBC reservations and eligibility for EWS benefits. The circular states:
"ÞvU; jkT; dh efgyk dks vks-ch-lh- izek.k i= ds vk/kkj ij jktLFkku esa fdlh Hkh HkrhZ esa vks-ch-lh- oxZ dk vkj{k.k ns; ugha gS] ijUrq vks-ch-lh- izek.k i= ds vk/kkj ij mls vkj{k.k ds vykok vU; ykHk izkIr gks ldrs gSaA vr% vU; jkT; dh dksbZ vks-ch-lh- ;qorh jktLFkku esa fdlh vks-ch-lh- ;qod ds "kknh djrh gS vkSj mlus jktLFkku esa vks-ch-lh- dk izek.ki= ugha cuok;k gS rks mls jktLFkku esa lkekU; oxZ dh ekurs gq, bZ-MCY;w-,l- dk izek.k i= tkjh fd;k tk ldrk gSA ,slh ;qorh dks bZ-MCY;w-,l- dk izek.k i= ds vk/kkj ij HkfrZ;ksa esa bZ-MCY;w-,l- vkj{k.k dkYkkHk fey ldrk gSA"
The Court held that the circular’s intent was to prevent double-dipping in reservation benefits while ensuring that economically disadvantaged women are not excluded from EWS benefits merely because they previously held an OBC certificate from another state. The Court emphasized that the petitioner had not claimed OBC status in Rajasthan and had applied strictly as a General category candidate. The rejection of her application on the basis of her Haryana OBC certificate was therefore arbitrary and violative of the circular’s express terms. The Court found no legal basis to override the State’s own policy directive.
The Verdict
The petitioner succeeded. The Court held that an EWS certificate cannot be denied to a woman who migrated to Rajasthan after marriage merely because she holds an OBC certificate from another state, provided she applies under the General category and satisfies the EWS income and asset criteria. The authorities were directed to reconsider her application within four weeks.
What This Means For Similar Cases
EWS Eligibility Is Independent of OBC Status from Other States
- Practitioners must now argue that EWS eligibility under the General category is not extinguished by possession of an OBC certificate from another state.
- Authorities cannot conflate OBC reservation benefits with EWS eligibility; they are distinct categories under the Constitution.
- Applications must be evaluated on the basis of current domicile, income, and self-declared category - not past caste certificates.
Circulars Carry Binding Force in Administrative Decision-Making
- State circulars issued under statutory authority, such as Circular No. 20.10.2023, are binding on administrative bodies.
- Refusal to follow such circulars constitutes arbitrariness under Article 14 and may be challenged successfully in writ jurisdiction.
- Practitioners should cite such circulars as primary authority, not merely as policy guidance.
Procedural Fairness Requires Reconsideration, Not Final Rejection
- A prior rejection of an EWS application does not bar reconsideration if new legal clarity emerges.
- Courts will direct reconsideration, not automatic issuance, but the burden shifts to the authority to justify denial on grounds other than those prohibited by the circular.
- Practitioners should file applications with clear declarations of category and attach proof of income, asset, and migration.
