RENU SHARMA Vs. RPSC THROUGH ITS SECRETARY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SERVICE of notice on respondents in Special Appeal No. 101/2013 is taken to be complete as Shri Vigyan Shah has put in appearance on behalf of respondents no.4 to 6, who were the petitioners in Writ Petition No. 19733/2012. Respondents No. 1 to 3 are duly represented by the Additional Advocate General. Suvidhya Yadav filed Writ Petition No. 20299/2012 and Shri Vigyan Shah was her counsel. She is respondent no.l in Special Appeal No. 366/2013, therefore, on the askance of the Court, Shri Vigyan Shah accepts notice on her behalf. Respondents no.2 and 3 are the State and its functionary and therefore Shri S.N. Kumawat, Additional Advocate General, accepts notices on their behalf. Hence, service is complete.

(2.) SERVICE of notice on respondents in Special Appeal No. 248/2013 is also taken to be complete as Shri Vigyan Shah has put in appearance on behalf of respondents no.1 to 3, who were the petitioners in Writ Petition No. 19733/2012. Respondents No. 4 and 5 are duly represented by the Additional Advocate General.

(3.) SHRI Tanveer Ahmed, learned counsel for the appellants has argued that in clause 5.4 of the advertisement notification issued by the Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Ajmer, dt. 17.02.2012, there was a clear stipulation to the effect that out of the posts reserved for female candidates, 8% would be reserved for widow candidates and 2% would be reserved for deserted female candidates. This was based on the Notification dt. 24.01.2011, whereby the Government promulgated the Rajasthan Various Service (Amendment) Rules, 2011, inserting an omnibus amendment in as many as 106 Service Rules of the State. The Notification also contained a Schedule and the substitution was made in the existing rules as mentioned in Column No. 3 against each of the Service Rules as mentioned in Column No. 2 of the Schedule.