SBCWP2628/1997 // 1 // IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR ORDER IN S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.2628/1997 Smt. Sita Devi Vs. The State of Rajasthan and Another Date of Order ::: 10.03.2010 Present Hon'ble Mr. Justice Mohammad Rafiq Shri Darshan Shree for Shri Bhanwar Bagri, Counsel for petitioner Shri S.D. Khaspuria, Additional Government Counsel for respondents #### By the Court:- Heard learned counsel for parties. This writ petition was filed by petitioner Smt. Sita Devi way back in the year 1997, with prayer that selection made by respondents for appointment on the post of Teacher Gr.III advertised by press notification dated 19.04.1997, be declared illegal and respondents be further directed to make such selection by taking into consideration the amendment in all the service Rules of the State made vide Notification dated 22.01.1997 by which 20% of posts were reserved for female candidates and provide such reservation to female candidates including the petitioner in the selection which was initiated pursuant to SBCWP2628/1997 // 2 // aforesaid Notification dated 02.01.1997. Contention of Shri Darshan Shree, brief holder of Shri Bhanwar Bagri, learned counsel for petitioner, is that last date for submitting application-form was 25.01.1997 and it is that date on which eligibility of such candidates has to be ascertained and further that before that date also the amendment was made by which 20% of posts were reserved for females, therefore the amendment should be held applicable even to the selection initiated pursuant to the advertisement dated 02.01.1997 even if the vacancies pertained to the year 1996-97. Shri S.D. Khaspuria, learned Additional Government Counsel, opposed the writ petition and submitted that the determination of vacancies as per Rule 9 of the Rajasthan Education Service Rules, 1970 is made on 1st April of every year and the advertisement in question was issued for the vacancies of the year 1996-97, the determination whereof was made on 1st April, 1996 and therefore the amendment subsequently made on 22.01.1997 cannot be held applicable to the selection in question. And, if that is done, that would adversely affect large number of such SBCWP2628/1997 // 3 // candidates who are not parties before this Court and whose chances of appointment would be otherwise diminished/restricted if reservation of 20% is granted to female candidates in the process of selection which was initiated much before issuance of Notification dated 22.01.1997 or such recruitment process has been finished. Learned counsel in support of his contention cited judgments of the Supreme Court in P. Ganeshwar Rao and Others Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and Others – 1988 (Supp) SCC 740 and Division Bench of this Court in Chanan Ram Vs. State of Rajasthan & Another – 1997 (1) R.L.R. 350. Learned counsel for respondents submitted that petitioner without raising any protest participated in the selection process claiming the benefit of OBC and having failed to secure appointment, she cannot be allowed to question the correctness of selection in question. On considering the arguments made by learned counsel for parties and perusing material on record, I find that petitioner has not been able to rebut this factual position that vacancies against which the appointments were proposed to be made were of the year 1996- SBCWP2628/1997 // 4 // 97. Determination of said vacancies was made on 1st April, 1996. The process of selection of successful candidates has been completed long ago and appointments have also been made. Petitioner herself participated in the selection and has chosen to file this writ petition much thereafter on 3rd May, 1997. As held by the Division Bench of this Court in Chanan Ram's case (Supra) and the Supreme Court in P. Ganeshwar Rao's case (Supra) any amendment made in regard to eligibility conditions or otherwise regarding apportionment of vacancies in the categories, the amendment would always be applicable prospectively. What is contended by petitioner if is accepted which would mean reopening of the entire process of selection which has long back has become final and none of the selected candidates are parties before this Court. I therefore do not find any merit in this writ petition and the same is accordingly dismissed. (Mohammad Rafiq) J. //Jaiman//