CWP 3576/01 //1// In the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan Jaipur Bench ** Civil Writ Petition No.3576/2001 Ashok Kumar Dudi Versus State & Anr Date of Order ::: 27/03/08 Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Rastogi Mr. DV Tholia, for petitioner Mr Vijay Dutt, Dy.Govt. Advocate, for respondents Instant petition has been filed seeking appointment to the post of Sr. Teacher (English) on the basis of participation in pursuance of advertisement dt.04/04/01 issued by respondents which was modified vide notification dt.14/04/01. Petitioner is a member of Other Backward Class. Advertisement (Ann.1) was issued on 04/04/01 for selection to 63 posts of Sr. Teacher (English) (including 13 reserved for OBC) for vacancy of the year 2000-01 under Rajasthan Education Subordinate Service Rules, 1971 and for these vacancies advertised (supra), corrigendum (Ann.2) was issued by respondents on 14/04/01 whereby break-up of earlier notified vacancies 63 posts of Sr. Teacher (English) underwent change and by virtue whereof, 34 & 25 vacancies were kept reserved for SC & ST members and four vacancies for OBC member as against 13 vacancies notified (Ann.1). Petitioner being eligible candidate & CWP 3576/01 //2// claiming himself as member of OBC, submitted his application in pursuance of advertisements dt. 04/04/01 (Ann.1) read with dt.14/04/01 (Ann.2) for the post Sr.Teacher (English), he was called for interview on 20/06/01 vide letter dt.30/05/01 (Ann.3) and after participation in process of selection, was placed at S.No.13 in the order of merit prepared for OBC candidates. Counsel for petitioner submits that 13 vacancies were initially notified as reserved for OBC candidates which were arbitrarily reduced to four in numbers by way of subsequent corrigendum without assigning details and reasons for reduction in reserved vacancies, which has caused great prejudice to the petitioner because 13 earlier notified vacancies reserved for OBC candidates if would have remained the same, he being placed at S.No.13 in order of merit prepared for OBC candidates, could have been considered for appointment to the post of Sr. Teacher (English). Respondents in their reply have specifically averred in para 3 that after 81st amendment in the Constitution introducing Art.16 (4B) effective from 31/10/2000, break up of vacancies reserved for SC/ST has undergone a change, thereby backlog whereof, if any, has been CWP 3576/01 //3// taken note of and accordingly, vacancies reserved for SC/ST as notified in advertisement dt. 04/04/01 (Ann.1) were increased while reducing 13 vacancies reserved for OBC to only four in numbers and no vacancy was available for open selection. It is not in dispute that over-all vacancies earlier notified vide advertisement dt. 04/04/01 (Ann.1) have remained the same. Respondents while issuing corrigendum on 14/04/01 has taken note of back log vacancies reserved for SC/ST after due determination as provided under scheme of Rules and remaining vacancies were considered as reserved for OBC. Petitioner participated in process of selection after issuing corrigendum has been given effect to by respondents, to which no grievance was ever raised by him at any point of time while participated and informed of placement in the order of merit prepared for OBC candidates. That apart, respondents considered to give first priority to backlog vacancies of SC/ST in terms of amended Art.16(4B) of the Constitution. This Court does not find any error in the decision of respondents for issuing revised notification impugned herein which was in consonance with the mandate of the Constitution CWP 3576/01 //4// and that apart, once petitioner participated in process of selection in terms of revised advertisement (Ann.2), and if he does not find place in the order of merit against vacancies notified of OBC members, he cannot now be allowed to raise any objection at a later stage. Consequently, writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed alongwith stay petition. No order as to costs. (Ajay Rastogi), J. K.Khatri/p.4/3576CWP01.doc