Woman Married Into TSP Area Gets TSP Consideration: Raj HC

Woman Married Into TSP Area Must Be Considered for TSP Teacher Posts Despite Non-TSP Application: Rajasthan High Court

Published: 31 October 2026 · NyayVidhan

The Rajasthan High Court at Jodhpur dismissed the State's special appeal and directed it to consider a woman married to a resident of the TSP area as a TSP area candidate for Teacher Grade-III, Level II posts under Advertisement No. 6/2018 (paras 17-18). She had applied as a non-TSP candidate before the State's notification of 21 October 2019 gave such women TSP area status (paras 3, 14). The Court followed Manish Kumar Nagda (paras 15-16). Thirteen connected appeals were disposed of in the same terms.

Key holdings

She rightly applied as non-TSP in 2018; the notification giving TSP status to women married to TSP area residents came only on 21 October 2019 (para 14).

Normally, a candidate who filled in no form under the TSP area advertisement would not be considered against it (para 15).

Manish Kumar Nagda, whose appeal was dismissed as infructuous, had treated similar candidates at par as TSP area candidates (paras 15-16).

The State must consider her candidature as a TSP area candidate under Advertisement No. 6/2018 (para 17).

Judgment digest by NyayVidhan: a summary of the court's judgment, not its text. The judgment itself is the authoritative version.

Brief Facts

The Directorate of Primary Education issued Advertisements No. 5/2018 and No. 6/2018, both dated 31 July 2018, for Teacher Grade-III, Level II (Science and Mathematics) posts in the non-TSP and TSP areas. The respondent, married to a person residing in the TSP area, applied as a non-TSP candidate under No. 5/2018, as no notification then gave such women TSP status. During the selection, a notification of 21 October 2019 treated them as TSP area candidates, but the State refused to consider her under No. 6/2018 (para 3). A Single Bench allowed her writ petition on 23 January 2023 (paras 2, 4). The State appealed, pleading no TSP application, two years' delay and supernumerary posts (paras 6-9).

Court's Findings

It was undisputed that, when the respondent filled in her form, her status had not changed from non-TSP to TSP, because the notification of 21 October 2019 came only later; her application under Advertisement No. 5/2018 was rightly made (para 14). Her later request to migrate to the TSP category under Advertisement No. 6/2018 was refused, and an interim order in the writ proceedings directed that her name be kept in the TSP area selection list (para 14). The Court accepted that, normally, a candidate who filled in no form under the TSP area advertisement would not be considered against it (para 15). But in similar circumstances the Single Bench in Manish Kumar Nagda had directed that petitioners who applied under one advertisement be processed with the TSP area advertisement's candidates and treated at par as TSP area candidates, where a notification of 19 May 2018 came after the last date for forms, 7 May 2018, while the selection was going on (para 15). The appeal against that order was dismissed as infructuous (para 16). In this view, she had to be considered as a TSP area candidate (para 17).

Legal Principle

Ordinarily, a candidate who filed no application under a TSP area advertisement cannot be considered against it. But a woman who rightly applied as a non-TSP candidate before the 21 October 2019 notification gave TSP area status to women married to TSP area residents must be considered as one, as in Manish Kumar Nagda (paras 14-17).

NyayVidhan's view · Practice note

Why It Matters

It matters to women married into the TSP area who applied in 2018 for Teacher Grade-III, Level II posts as non-TSP candidates. The Court directed the State to consider the respondent against TSP area Advertisement No. 6/2018 though she filled in no TSP form, because the 21 October 2019 notification giving such women TSP status came after the forms were filled in (paras 14, 17). The Bench said such a prayer would not normally be entertained and followed Manish Kumar Nagda (paras 15-16), so the result rests on these facts; an interim order had also directed that her name be kept in the TSP selection list (para 14). Thirteen connected State appeals were disposed of in the same terms.

Editorial comment by the NyayVidhan Editorial Desk. It is not part of the Court's judgment and is not legal advice.

Precedents Relied Upon

Manish Kumar Nagda & Ors. v. State of Rajasthan & Ors. SBCW No.8529/2018, decided on 23.07.2018
Followed Discussed at ¶ 8, 11, 15, 16
Single Bench order directing that petitioners who had applied under one advertisement be processed along with the candidates of the TSP area advertisement and treated at par as TSP area candidates, in the spirit of a notification of 19.05.2018 issued after the last date for forms (07.05.2018) while the selection was going on; part of that order is quoted in para 15. The appeal against it was dismissed as infructuous (paras 11, 16). The State sought to distinguish it (para 8); the Court applied it as a decision in similar circumstances (paras 15-17).
Smt. Twarita Gehlot v. State of Rajasthan & Ors. SBCW No.15540/2017, decided on 14.12.2017
Referred To Discussed at ¶ 11
Cited for the respondent: in the light of this judgment the State issued the notification of 21.10.2019 treating women married to persons residing in the TSP area as TSP candidates, and the Single Bench is said to have rightly relied on it (para 11). The Court's own reasoning does not refer to it (paras 14-17).