Raksha Ben vs State Of Rajasthan And Ors

By way of the present writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the action of the respondents whereby they have considered the petitioner’s

candidature to TSP-General as against her claim of being considered as TSP-ST.

The petitioner used to live in Gujarat before getting married to Balwant- A Scheduled Tribe (Bheel) of Rajasthan. After her marriage, she got a caste

certificate issued in Rajasthan on the basis of her husband’s caste status.

Mr. Godara, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in view of the notification dated 21.10.2019, all the female candidates residing in

Rajasthan, who have married a TSP resident of Rajasthan, have been held entitled for consideration of their candidature as TSP and since the

petitioner belongs to a Bheel community, which caste is a Scheduled Caste as per the notification issued for the State of Rajasthan, the petitioner is

entitled for consideration of her candidature as a TSP-ST candidate.

Mr. Mehta, learned counsel for the respondents opposing the prayer of the petitioner submitted that so far as the notification dated 21.10.2019 issued

by His Excellency the Governor is concerned, the same is only with respect to consideration of a female candidate as a resident of Tribal Sub-Plan

Area, however, it will not ipso-facto mean that a female candidate marrying to a ST in Rajasthan, will also be considered as a ST candidate - as the

caste and reservation to a person is to be reckoned on the basis of the caste of her father.

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and relying upon the judgment dated 4.2.2020 rendered in the case of Pinky Vs. State of Rajasthan

(SBCWP No.136/2020), whereby the identical controversy has been decided, the writ petition, is also dismissed. The operative portion of the judgment

in the case of Pinky (supras) reads thus:

“5. The Division Bench of this Court in the case of Chitra Devi (supra) has held as under :

“In the light of above discussion, this Court is of the opinion that the respondents could not have claimed the benefit of SC/ST status merely on the

basis that they were issued Rajasthan certificates, and that they were residing in Rajasthan. Their claim to that status did not satisfy clause 4(iv) and

4(viii). Accordingly, the Single Judge fell into an error in granting the direction having regard to the circumstances of the case.

For the foregoing reasons, the appeals have to be allowed. The impugned judgments are hereby set aside. The State’s appeals are allowed. All

pending applications are disposed of.â€​

Following the above referred judgments of Hon’ble Supreme Court and Division Bench judgment in the case of Chitra Devi (supra), the writ

petition is dismissed.

The stay application is also dismissed.â€​

The stay application also stands disposed of accordingly.