SBCWP NO.2027/00. 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR. O R D E R S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.2027/2002. Smt.Sangeeta Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr. Date of order : February 06, 2009. HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMAD RAFIQ None present for the petitioner. Shri Zakir Hussain, Additional Government Counsel. Shri S.N. Kumawat for RPSC. **** BY THE COURT :- The petitioner has filed this writ petition challenging the Corrigendum issued by the respondent- RPSC dated 23/1/2002 by which, earlier advertisement issued by them on 26/7/2001 was amended to say that certain number of posts out of these posts were backlogue vacancies of the categories of Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes. According to the petitioner, no such Corrigendum could be issued by the respondents which would defeat claim of the candidates belonging to general category. Challenge of the petitioner is to Corrigendum relating to the vacancies of subject of Commerce. Respondents SBCWP NO.2027/00. 2 originally advertised 12 vacancies of which, 4 were reserved for female but lateron, all these 12 vacancies were claimed to be backlogue vacancies. Petitioner has in this writ petition has contended that this would amount to make 100% reservation in favour of the members of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. In view of proposition of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in catena of judgments, it would thus be violative of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India. 2) Respondent-RPSC in reply to the writ petition has contended that the advertisement is issued by them as per the requisition issued from the State Government. In so far as determination of vacancies and application of roster point thereto is concerned, this is the intention of the government. The government in view of Constitution (Eighty-first Amendment) Act 2000 and sub-Article (4B) of Article 16 of the Constitution of India, treated the backlog vacancies as a separate block for arriving at the ceiling of 50% in reservation. Further, for the purpose of arriving at ceiling of 50%, vacancies of only that year in which selection process undertaken would be considered and backlogue vacancies would not be applied. 2) In view of the Constitution (Eighty-first Amendment) Act 2000 and sub-Article (4B) of Article 16 of the Constitution of India, ceiling of 50% would now apply to the vacancies of particular year alone SBCWP NO.2027/00. 3 and as far as backlogue vacancies are concerned, they are liable to be treated as separate law. The argument of the petitioner could not therefore hold good. Respondents in reply however clarified that the advertisement also contains a stipulation that in the event of adequate number of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes not being available and there was a shortfall in reserved category, such vacancies to the extent of shortfall would be from amongst the general candidates. 3) Otherwise also, this matter is squarely covered by the judgment of this Court in Deepak Mathur Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr. {SBCWP No.450/2002 decided on 29/1/2009}. 4) The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. A copy of this order be endorsed to the petitioner for information. (MOHAMMAD RAFIQ), J. anil SBCWP NO.2027/00. 4 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR. O R D E R S.B. CIVIL MISC.STAY APPLICATION NO.1767/2002. IN S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.2027/2000. Smt.Sangeeta Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr. Date of order : February 06, 2009. HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMAD RAFIQ None present for the applicant-petitioner. Shri Zakir Hussain, Additional Government Counsel. Shri S.N. Kumawat for RPSC. **** BY THE COURT :- Consequent upon dismissal of the writ petition, this stay application does not survive. The stay application is accordingly rejected. (MOHAMMAD RAFIQ), J. anil