IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR JUDGMENT 1. DB CIVIL SPECIAL APPEAL NO. 716/98 IN SB CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 760/96. (SAMAJIK NYAYA SHODH SANSTHAN & ANR. Vs. STATE & ORS.) 2. DB CIVIL SPECIAL APPEAL NO. 717/98 IN SB CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 2127/96. (DR. P.M. KANWAT Vs. STATE & ORS.) 3. DB CIVIL SPECIAL APPEAL NO. 722/98 IN SB CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 2591/96. (G.L. YADAV Vs. STATE & ANR.) 4. DB CIVIL SPECIAL APPEAL NO. 723/98 IN SB CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 2126/96. (DR. B.D. YADAV & ANR. Vs. STATE & ORS.) DATE OF JUDGMENT : JANUARY 30, 2008. PRESENT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHIV KUMAR SHARMA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.S. CHAUHAN Mr. Mr. G.K. Garg with Mr. Saransh Saini for the appellants. Mr. Rajnish Gupta, Dy. G.A. BY THE COURT :( ORAL ) Since the question of fact and law are identical in all these special appeals we proceed to decide them by a common order. The following question arises in these appeals :- Whether the respondent-University in its advertisement No. 2/95 dated July 25, 1995 has complied with law in giving 21% reservation to OBC in accordance with Section 10-A of the Rajasthan Universities Act or not ? The learned Single Judge answered the above question in view of the ration indicated in Dr. Suresh Chandra Verma & Ors. Vs. The Chancellor, Nagpur University & Ors. (AIR 1990 SC 2023), wherein the Apex Court observed as under:- “The Policy of reservation as enunciated in Government Resolution dated March 30, 1981 does not support any contrary interpretation. The Government Resolution merely seeks to convey that although at any given time the total percentage of reservation, viz. 34% is not made up vis-a-vis particular post or posts, it would be enough compliance with the Resolution if the total number of vacancies filled in all the posts together conform to the said percentage. This, however, does not absolve the appointing authority from advertising in advance the vacancies in each post and the number of posts in such vacancies meant for the reserved category, and inviting applications from the candidates belonging to the reserved and unreserved categories with a clear statement in that behalf.” Consequently, we see no ground to interfere with the order of the learned Single Judge. The special appeals being devoid of merit stand dismissed without any order as to costs. ( R.S. CHAUHAN ) J. ( SHIV KUMAR SHARMA )J. MRG.