[Cites 7, Cited by 0]
Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Saroj Sharma vs State Of Rajasthan on 1 December, 2025
[2025:RJ-JD:51400]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1919/2023
Saroj Sharma Wd/o Surya Kant D/o Shri Mahavir Prasad
Sharma, Aged About 39 Years, R/o Gargh Ke Pass, Village Nimaj,
Tehsil Jataran, District Pali (Raj.).
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State of Rajasthan, through the Principal Secretary,
Department of Rural Development and Panchayati Raj
(Panchayati Raj), Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur,
Rajasthan.
2. Additional Commissioner, Rural Development And
Panchayati Raj Department, Government of Rajasthan,
Jaipur.
3. Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad Pali, Rajasthan.
4. Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad Jodhpur, Rajasthan.
5. Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad Jalore, Rajasthan.
6. Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad Bhilwara, Rajasthan.
7. Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad Sirohi, Rajasthan.
8. Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad Jaisalmer, Rajasthan.
9. Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad Nagaur, Rajasthan.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. O.P.Kumawat, Adv.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Pawan Bhati and Mr. K.S. Solanki
for Mr. I.R.Choudhary, AAG
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MUNNURI LAXMAN
Order
Order Reserved on : 26/11/2025
Order Pronounced on : 01/12/2025
1) The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner
challenging the action of the respondents in not considering her
(Uploaded on 01/12/2025 at 01:40:04 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:51400] (2 of 12) [CW-1919/2023]
candidature for appointment under the unreserved (widow)
category for recruitment to the post of LDC.
2) The facts disclosed that the respondents issued an
advertisement for the selection of LDCs vide advertisement dated
12.2.2013. The last date for submitting applications was
22.3.2013. The petitioner applied for the said post on 13.4.2013
under the category of Unreserved Female (General Female). The
advertisement provided various reservations, including reservation
for widows, and certain posts were earmarked for the Unreserved
(Widow) category. The petitioner applied only under the
Unreserved (Female) category and did not apply under the
Unreserved (Widow) category as she was not entitled to do so. At
the time of submitting the application, the petitioner's husband
was alive. Accordingly, the petitioner participated in the selection
process for the General/Unreserved (Female) category only and
not under the Unreserved (Widow) reservation.
3) During the selection process, the petitioner's husband
passed away on 19.12.2022. In the original selection list, she was
not found meritorious either under the Unreserved/General
(Female) category or the Unreserved/General (Widow) category.
By communication dated 17.11.2022, the respondents decided to
fill the unfilled vacancies in the selection process undertaken
pursuant to the advertisement dated 12.02.2013. A candidate
having 32.846 marks (as shown in Annexure-6) was selected
under the Unreserved/General Widow category, whereas the
petitioner had secured 52.739 marks. As she had higher marks
than the selected candidate under the Unreserved (Widow)
category, the petitioner submitted a representation dated
(Uploaded on 01/12/2025 at 01:40:04 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:51400] (3 of 12) [CW-1919/2023]
12.01.2023 requesting the respondents to change her category of
consideration from Unreserved (Female) to Unreserved/General
(Widow). When such a representation was not considered, the
present writ petition has been filed.
4) The case of the respondents is that the petitioner had
applied under the General/Unreserved (Female) category and was
not entitled to avail reservation under the Unreserved (Widow)
category as she was not meeting the eligibility criteria on the last
date for submitting applications in 2013. Only upon the death of
her husband on 19.12.2022, she gained the right to avail
reservation under the Unreserved (Widow) category. This right to
claim reservation arose subsequent to the last date for submitting
applications. The petitioner cannot change her category during the
selection process, particularly when she was not eligible to avail
such reservation on the last date of submitting the application.
Thus, the respondent prayed to dismiss the writ petition.
5) Heard the learned counsel for the for the parties.
6) The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits
that though the petitioner had applied under the General/
Unreserved (Female) category, as she did not meet the criteria for
availing reservation under the Unreserved (Widow) category
because her husband was alive on the last date of the notification,
such a beneficial policy ought to be extended to persons who
become widows during the selection process due to unforeseen
circumstances. Therefore, her category ought to have been
changed for consideration under the Unreserved (Widow)
category. In support of his case, the learned counsel has relied
upon the decision of Division Bench of this Court in the case of
(Uploaded on 01/12/2025 at 01:40:04 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:51400] (4 of 12) [CW-1919/2023]
State of Rajsthan & ors. Vs. Ms. Jamna Rajpurohit (D.B.Civil
Special Appeal No.82/2013), decided on 30.08.2013, whereunder
the Division Bench of this Hon'ble Court has directed the State to
apply the Special Reservation though such a right to claim
reservation arose during the selection process.
7) The learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that a
contrary view was taken in State of Rajasthan & Anr. v.
Jagdish Prasad & Anr., reported in 2016 SCC OnLine Raj 9806.
He has relied upon the decision of the Division Bench of this Court
in Sangeeta Joshi v. Rajasthan High Court & Ors., reported in
2024 SCC OnLine Raj 507, to contend that similar questions have
been referred to a Larger Bench, and therefore, until the Larger
Bench decides the matter, the writ petition should not be disposed
of.
8) Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondents submits
that the petitioner applied under the General/Unreserved (Female)
category and had no right to avail reservation under the
Unreserved (Widow) category as on the last date for submitting
applications. Her candidature was required to be considered only
under the General/Unreserved (Female) category. She was not
entitled to consideration under the Unreserved (Widow) category,
as she did not meet the eligibility criteria on the last date of
application. The petitioner became eligible during the selection
process, after a lapse of nine years, only upon the death of her
husband on 19.12.2022. It is further submitted that the
controversy regarding change of category shifting eligibility
criteria during the selection process upon subsequent acquisition
of eligibility for various reserved categories has been considered
(Uploaded on 01/12/2025 at 01:40:04 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:51400] (5 of 12) [CW-1919/2023]
by the Apex Court in several cases and rejected. Thus, the writ
petition deserves to be dismissed.
9) The learned counsel appearing for the respondents also
submitted that the view expressed by the learned Judges of the
Division Bench, while making a reference to a larger Bench, did
not consider the binding precedents of the Apex Court holding that
eligibility criteria must be determined with reference to the date
specified in the Rules or the date mentioned in the advertisement.
In the absence of such specifications, the last date for submitting
the application becomes the cut-off date for determining eligibility.
The petitioner has failed to bring on record any Rules permitting
the grant of such reservation, nor is there any date prescribed in
the advertisement that would allow a candidate to claim eligibility
acquired after the cut-off date. Therefore, the relevant eligibility
criteria must be assessed with reference to the last date for
submitting the application. In the present case, the petitioner did
not meet the eligibility criteria for availing the reservation as on
that date. Accordingly, a reference to a larger Bench of this Court,
in light of the various judgments of the Apex Court, is
unwarranted and such decision is per incuriam.
10) In the context of the above contentions, it is relevant to
refer to certain undisputed facts from the pleadings and
contentions of both the parties. The advertisement to fill up the
LDC post was issued on 12.02.2013. The petitioner made an
application on 13.04.2023 opting the category of general/
unreserved (female). The advertisement prescribes various kinds
of reservation and posts are also earmarked in the advertisement.
For the purpose of present dispute, the advertisement prescribes
(Uploaded on 01/12/2025 at 01:40:04 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:51400] (6 of 12) [CW-1919/2023]
reservation for unreserved (widow) category. On the last dater of
application, the petitioner is not meeting the eligibility criteria for
selection to the post of unreserved (widow) category as her
husband was alive at that time. The husband of the petitioner died
on 19.12.2022. This means that the petitioner did not meet the
eligibility criteria for availing reservation under unreserved
(widow) category and acquired eligibility after 9 years from the
date of advertisement. The selection process culminated into final
list and appointment orders were also issued. By communication
dated 17.11.2022, the respondents decided to fill up unfilled
vacancies in the recruitment process of 12.02.2013. The petitioner
got 52.739 marks. The candidate having 32.846 (as contained in
Annexure-6) has been selected under the category of unreserved/
general widow. This means that the petitioner's marks are more
than the selected candidate in unreserved (widow) category, if she
is permitted to change the category, she would find her name in
the merit list of Unreserved (Widow) category.
11) The question before this Court is whether a person who
acquires eligibility for a reservation due to an event occurring after
the cut-off date or during the selection process is entitled to avail
such reservation, even though she was initially ineligible for
consideration under the reserved category.
12) The controversy with regard to relevant date for
determination of eligibility criteria is no more res integra and they
are the settled principles from various precedents of the Apex
Court. It is suffice to refer to recent judgment of Apex Court in the
case of Soumen Paul & Ors. Vs. Shrabani Nayek & Ors.,
(Uploaded on 01/12/2025 at 01:40:04 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:51400] (7 of 12) [CW-1919/2023]
reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 720, the relevant paragraph
reads as follows:-
"24. The law on the subject was also considered by
the recent Constitution Bench decision of this Court
in the case of Tej Prakash Pathak v. Rajasthan High
Court.21 Delivering the judgment of the Court,
Justice Manoj Misra (one of us) succinctly explained
the legal position as follows:
14. In various judicial pronouncements, the
law governing recruitment to public services
has been colloquially termed as "the rules of
the game". The "game" is the process of
selection and appointment. Courts have
consistently frowned upon tinkering with the
rules of the game once the recruitment
process commences. This has crystallised into
an oft-quoted legal phrase that "the rules of
the game must not be changed midway, or
after the game has been played". Broadly
speaking these rules fall in two categories.
One which prescribes the eligibility criteria
(i.e. essential qualifications) of the candidates
seeking employment; and the other which
stipulates the method and manner of making
the selection from amongst the eligible
candidates.
15. Cut-off date with reference to which
eligibility has to be determined is the date
appointed by the relevant service rules;
where no such cut-off date is provided in the
rules, then it will be the date appointed in the
advertisement inviting applications; and if
there is no such date appointed, then
eligibility criteria shall be applied by reference
to the last date appointed by which the
applications were to be received.22
25. Re: Application of the interpretation and these
precedents to the facts of the present case. We
have already held that Rule 6(2) of the Recruitment
Rules, 2016 does not prescribe a date by which
minimum qualifications must be possessed. We
have also upheld the stand of the Board in this
(Uploaded on 01/12/2025 at 01:40:04 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:51400] (8 of 12) [CW-1919/2023]
regard. It is in this context that we must now
consider the legality and validity of the recruitment
notification dated 21.10.2022. The need for a close
scrutiny of the recruitment notification is also to
ensure that it is in consonance with the law laid
down by this Court.
26. Even as per the decisions of this Court in
Bhupinderpal Singh (supra), the candidate seeking
public employment must satisfy his eligibility
requirements in terms of the date appointed by the
relevant service rules and, "if there is no cut-off
date appointed by the rules then such date as may
be appointed for the purpose of advertisement
calling for applications". Further, if there is no such
date appointed then eligibility criteria shall be with
reference to the last date appointed by which the
applications have to be received.
13.1) The principles enunciated from the above precedents are
clear. Firstly, the eligibility criteria must be determined with
reference to the cut-off date fixed under the Rules. Secondly, in
the absence of a cut-off date under the Rules, the date specified in
the advertisement is to be considered. Thirdly, if no cut-off date is
mentioned either in the Rules or the advertisement, the last date
appointed for receiving applications serves as the relevant cut off
date.
13) The petitioner has failed to bring on record any provision
in the Rules indicating a cut-off date to test eligibility for availing
reservation under the Unreserved (Widow) category. She has also
failed to point out any cut-off date specified in the advertisement.
Therefore, the relevant cut-off date must be the last date
appointed for receiving applications. Admittedly, in the present
case, the petitioner does not meet the eligibility criteria for
consideration under the Unreserved (Widow) category on such
(Uploaded on 01/12/2025 at 01:40:04 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:51400] (9 of 12) [CW-1919/2023]
date, as she acquired eligibility only on 19.12.2022, due to the
death of her husband, nine years after the commencement of the
recruitment process.
14) The Apex Court in the case of Gurdeep Singh Vs. State
of J.& K., reported in 1995 Supp (1) SCC 188, in a similar set of
facts, had occasion to consider a candidate's entitlement to be
considered for a reservation. In that case, the facts revealed that
the sport for which the candidate held a certificate was not
included in the Schedule of recognized sports. However, during the
course of the selection process, an amendment was made,
including the said sport in the Schedule. Consequently, the
candidate acquired eligibility to avail of the reservation under the
Sports Category. In the said context the Apex Court held as
follows:-
"7....The real question was rather that such a sport
not having been included in the list of approved
sports at the cut-off date when the applications
were invited and on the basis of which candidates
responded, could not later be introduced to provide
eligibility retrospectively to a single candidate....."
15) It is also relevant to refer to the decision of Apex Court in
the case of J.& K. Public Service Commission Vs. Israr
Ahmad & Ors., reported in MANU/SC/2713/2005, wherein it has
been held as follows:-
7. We have considered the rival contentions advanced
by both the parties. The contention of the first
Respondent cannot be accepted as he has not applied
for the selection as a candidate entitled to get
reservation. He did not produce any certificate along
with his application. The fact that he has not availed
the benefit for the preliminary examination itself is
sufficient to treat him as a candidate not entitled to get
reservation. He passed the preliminary examination as
a general candidate and at the subsequent stage of the
(Uploaded on 01/12/2025 at 01:40:04 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:51400] (10 of 12) [CW-1919/2023]
main examination he cannot avail the reservation on
the ground that he was successful in getting the
required certificate only at a later stage. The nature
and status of the candidate who was applying for the
selection could only be tr eated alike and once a
candidate has chosen to opt for the category to which
he is entitled, he cannot later change the status and
make fresh claim. The Division Bench was not correct in
holding that as a candidate he had also had the
qualification and the production of the certificate at a
later stage would make him entitled to seek
reservation. Therefore, we set aside the judgment of
the Division Bench and allow the appeal. No costs."
15.1) A reading of the above decision, it is clear that a person
who applied for the general category is not entitled to change the
category upon acquisition of a certification of reservation in the
middle of the selection process. The relevant date was date
appointed under the advertisement or the rules, if not the last
date for making an application.
16) In the case of Jagdish Prasad (supra), the Division
Bench had occasion to consider the case of Ms. Jamna
Rajpurohit (supra), wherein persons acquired eligibility for
consideration of a post reserved for Unreserved (Widows) during
the course of the selection process was allowed to avail
reservation. However, this decision was held to be per incuriam in
light of the decisions of the Apex Court in (i) Gurdeep Singh
(supra), (ii) Rakesh Kumar Sharma vs. State (NCT of Delhi),
reported in (2013) 11 SCC 58, and (iii) U.P. Public Service
Commission, U.P. vs. Alpana, reported in (1994) 2 SCC 723.
17) The decision of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of
Sangeeta Joshi (supra), while referring the matter, did not have
occasion to consider the settled principles governing the relevant
date for determining eligibility. When the law is well settled by the
(Uploaded on 01/12/2025 at 01:40:04 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:51400] (11 of 12) [CW-1919/2023]
Apex Court in various binding precedents, as referred herein-
above, I am of the view that those precedents are operating in the
field. The larger Bench cannot go against those principles even if it
is required to decide. I respectfully disagree with the view taken
by learned Judges in the case of Sangeeta Joshi in the light of
the binding principles of Apex Court referred herein-above and I
hold that such reference is per incuriam.
18) The real issue in the present writ petition is not the
shifting of the category during the pendency of the selection
process. The true issue is the shifting of the cut-off date for
meeting the eligibility criteria from the cut off date mentioned in
the notification to some other date during the selection process. In
the case of shifting the category, the individual fulfills eligibility
criteria but could comply requirement to claim such eligibility at
the time of cut-off date specified in the advertisement.
19) To claim reservation under the unreserved (widow)
category, the applicant must be a married woman and her
husband had died as on the relevant date. Only if these two
conditions are satisfied then only she would be eligible to claim
the reservation. In this case, the petitioner is a married woman
and her husband was alive at the time of submitting the
application. Therefore, she did not meet the eligibility criteria for
claiming the reservation. She only acquired eligibility upon the
death of her husband during the pendency of the selection
process. Allowing the petitioner to claim the reservation under the
unreserved (widow) category would effectively mean shifting the
eligibility criteria from the cut-off date specified in the Notification
(Uploaded on 01/12/2025 at 01:40:04 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:51400] (12 of 12) [CW-1919/2023]
to a later date, i.e., the date on which she became eligible during
the selection process which cannot be allowed.
20) The petitioner did not fulfill the eligibility criteria to avail the
reservation under the Unreserved (Widow) category as on the last
date for submission of the application. Furthermore, she cannot be
permitted to change her category based on the acquisition of
eligibility during the pendency of the selection process, as
consistently held by various decisions of the Apex Court.
Therefore, the writ petition is devoid of merit and is liable to be
dismissed.
21) In the result, the writ petition is dismissed.
22) In the circumstances, no order as to costs.
23) Pending interlocutory applications, if any, shall stand
disposed of.
(MUNNURI LAXMAN),J
NK/-
(Uploaded on 01/12/2025 at 01:40:04 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
