Order : (REKHA BORANA, J.) 1. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the controversy in question rests covered by the judgment of a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court passed in Aman Kumari Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.; S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.7512/2022 & connected matter (decided on 21.09.2022). 2. Counsel for the respondent is not in a position to refute the above submission. However, he submits that if the petitioner files a representation, the respondent-authorities would definitely consider and decide the same in accordance with Aman Kumari’s case (supra) and if she is found to be covered by the said judgment, appropriate relief would be granted to her. 3. In Aman Kumari’ case (supra), it was observed and held as under:- “These writ petitions have been filed by the petitioners aggrieved against Clause 12.2 (vi) of the advertisement dated 31.12.2021 for recruitment to the post of Teacher Grade-III(Level-I) in relation to providing reservation to candidates in EWS category. Further relief has been sought that as the petitioners fall in merit in the EWS category, they may be accorded appointment on the post of Teacher Grade-III (Level-I). It is, inter-alia, indicated in the petitions that the advertisement dated 31.12.2021 was issued by the respondents for recruitment to the post of Teacher Grade-III (Level-I). The respondents had, inter-alia, provided reservation for the candidates belonging to EWS category, however, in Clause 12.2(vi) pertaining to the reservation, it was, inter-alia, indicated as under :- ^^ekuuh; loksZPp U;k;ky; }kjk flfoy vihy la[;k 8425@2013 jatuk dqekjh o vU; cuke mRrjk[k.M jkT; o vU;esa ikfjr fu.kZ; fnukad 01-11-2018 ,oa ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; t;iqj }kjk Mh ch Lis'ky vihy la[;k 1116@2018 jkT; ljdkj o vU; cuke eatw ;kno o vU; esa ikfjr fu.kZ; fnukad 18-09-2018 ds vuqlkj jktLFkku jkT; esa fookg mijkUr izokflr gqbZ vkjf{kroxZ ¼vkfFkZd :i ls detksj oxZ] vU; fiNM+k oxZ] vfr fiNM+k oxZ] vuqlwfpr tkfr] vuqlwfpr tutkfr ,oa lgfj;k vkfne tkfr½ dh efgyk vH;FkhZ dks muds oxZ ds vkjf{kr inksa dk ykHk ns; ugha gksxk] vr% ,slh efgyk vH;fFkZ;ksa dks lkekU; oxZ ds vUrxZr vkosnu djuk gksxkA^^ (emphasis supplied) The stipulation debarred, those woman candidates, who are residents of the State due to marriage from getting the benefit, inter-alia, of EWS category. The petitioners applied and claimed their status as EWS and as per provisional merit list, they were provisionally selected and called for document verification. The petitioners applied and claimed their status as EWS and as per provisional merit list, they were provisionally selected and called for document verification. However, in the final merit list, though the petitioners had obtained marks higher than the cut-off, their names were not reflected in the said list. The petitioners made inquiry and were told that in terms of the stipulation made in the advertisement Clause 12.2(vi) as the petitioners were born outside the State and were married in the State and despite falling within the EWS category, they were not entitled to benefit of reservation and were treated in the General category and the marks obtained by them were less than the General category candidates, the petitioners have not been included in the final merit list. Learned counsel for the petitioners made submissions that the action of the respondents in excluding the petitioners, who otherwise fall in the EWS category only on account of the fact that they originally are from outside the State and they have been married into Rajasthan, is not justified. Reference has been made to Circulars dated 10.02.2020 & 16.08.2021 (Annex.11 to SBCWP No.7512/2022) in this regard. It is submitted that the circulars specifically provide that the candidates like petitioners would be entitled to the said benefit. A reply to the petition has been filed, inter-alia, indicating that as specific stipulation has been made in the advertisement and despite that, the petitioners have applied, the petitioners are estopped for questioning its validity. Further submissions have been made that the Circulars dated 10.02.2020 & 16.08.2021 (Annex.11 to SBCWP No.7512/2022) relied on by the petitioner are general in nature and the same do not deal with the recruitment and therefore, the petitioners are not entitled to any relief. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the material available on record. The respondents, in the stipulation, made reference to the judgment in the case of Ranjana Kumari v. State of Uttrakhand &Ors. : (2019)15 SCC 664 and thereafter has observed that those married into the State, would not be entitled to the benefit of OBC, SC, ST & EWS category. The respondents, in the stipulation, made reference to the judgment in the case of Ranjana Kumari v. State of Uttrakhand &Ors. : (2019)15 SCC 664 and thereafter has observed that those married into the State, would not be entitled to the benefit of OBC, SC, ST & EWS category. The said stipulation made by the respondents in the advertisement is ex facie contrary to the very scheme of EWS reservation as compared to the reservation provided to OBC, SC & ST and the dictum of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ranjana Kumari (supra), which apparently has no application to reservation meant for EWS category. The circulars of the State, inter-alia, after observing that the Central Government has provided for reservation in educational institution and services to the extent of 10% for EWS category candidates and for issuance of certificate to the woman married within the State, it was stipulated as under :- ^^nwljk ;fn fookfgr efgyk dh mlds ewy jkT; esa mldh iSr`d tkfr lkekU; oxZ esa gS rFkk mldk fookg jktLFkku jkT; ds fdlh vkjf{kr oxZ ds O;fDr ls gqvk gS rks Hkh og jktLFkku jkT; esa lkekU; oxZ ¼vFkkZr vuqlwfpr tkfr] tutkfr o vU; fiNM+k oxZ ds vfrfjDr½ esa ekuh tk;sxh] ,oa ,sls vkfFkZd detksj oxZ (EWS) ds O;fDr dks fu/kkZfjr ekin.Mksa ds vuqlkj Income & Asset Certificate ikus ds gdnkj gksxsaA^^ ? The stipulation is specific, wherein they have been held entitled to issuance of EWS certificate. Once, the State itself in its Circular dated 16.08.2021 has ordered for issuance of EWS certificate to eligible woman married within the State, the stipulation in the advertisement dated 31.12.2021 essentially is contrary to the said circular and cannot debar the candidates like petitioners, who are otherwise entitled to the benefit of reservation provided to the EWS category candidates. The submissions made in the reply pertaining to estoppal and the fact that the Circulars dated 10.02.2020 & 16.08.2021(Annex.11 to CWP No.7512/2022) are general in nature, have no substance, inasmuch as, once it is found that the stipulation in the advertisement is ex facie contrary to the scheme of EWS reservation and the respondents’ own circular, the petitioners cannot be debarred from claiming the benefits based on the plea of estoppal. Further as noticed herein-before the Circular dated 16.08.2021 is very specific, wherein the same starts with reference to the benefits available to the EWS category candidates for employment / services etc. and therefore, it cannot be said that the circular is general in nature and does not apply to recruitments. In view of the above, the writ petitions are allowed. The respondents are directed to consider the candidature of the petitioners in EWS category and in case, they are otherwise eligible and fall within the cut-off meant for EWS category candidates, they be accorded appointment on the post of Teacher Grade-III (Level-I). The petitioners would be entitled to all consequential benefits from the date the persons lower in merit to the petitioners were accorded appointment. However, the petitioners would be entitled to the monetary benefits from the date of actual appointment. Needful may be done within a period of four weeks.” 4. In view of the submission made, the present writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the competent authority/respondents to decide the representation of the petitioner if filed within a period of fifteen days from now. The representation be decided within a period of six weeks thereafter in accordance with law, keeping in view the observations made in the case of Aman Kumari (supra). 5. It is made clear that aforesaid direction to decide the representation has been issued only with a view to ensure expeditious redressal of petitioner’s grievance. The same may not be construed to be an order to decide the representation in a particular manner. 6. Stay petition and pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.