Sangeeta K. Vishen,J. - (1.)The issues involved in all these petitions are similar. They are heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment. The facts as is discernible from the record of Special Civil Application No.19090 of 2017 are as under.
(2.)The petitioners have been serving as Unarmed Constable, Head Constable or Assistant Sub-Inspector and all of them have rendered more than 15 years of service. The petitioners have challenged the action of the respondent authorities in not providing women reservation in the recruitment to the post of Police Sub-Inspector (Unarmed) Class-III and thereby denying legitimate right of the petitioners for being appointed against such posts. The petitioners in one of the petitions have also challenged the action of the respondent authorities of not providing separate category-wise qualifying standard for women candidates despite there being different criteria provided for male and female candidates for such recruitment. The petitioners have, inter alia, prayed for following reliefs:
"6. The petitioner respectfully pray that, on the basis of the facts and circumstances as mentioned hereinabove and which may be urged at the time of hearing, the Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction to the respondent authorities and may be pleased to:-

(A) declare and hold that, the action of the respondent authorities of not providing women reservation in the recruitment to the post of Police Sub-Inspector (Unarmed), Class-III, pursuant to advertisement No.61/2015-16 is illegal, arbitrary, discriminatory, unconstitutional and violative of rules thereof, and

(B) declare and hold that the present petitioners are eligible and entitled to be considered for appointment to the post of Police Sub-Inspector (Unarmed), Class-III and further be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to consider the present petitioners for appointment to the post of Police Sub-Inspector (Unarmed), Class-III, and

... ... ..."

(3.)Tersely stated are the facts.
3.1 An Advertisement No.61/2015-16 came to be published on 3.12.2015 inviting applications from the eligible candidates, serving as Assistant Sub-Inspector (Unarmed) or Head Constable (Unarmed) or Police Constable (Unarmed) and have rendered total 15 years of service, for appointment by way of a Special Competitive Examination to the post of Police Sub-Inspector (Unarmed), Class-III. By said advertisement, total 260 posts were advertised and out of which 202 seats were reserved for general / open category, 22 for scheduled castes and 34 for scheduled tribes. According to the petitioners, subsequently, modified advertisement was published by the respondent No.3 Gujarat Subordinate Services Selection Board (hereinafter referred to as 'the Selection Board') on 7.12.2016 whereby total 403 posts were advertised, in view of the judgment of this Court. On both the occasions, no separate category-wise reservation was provided for women.

3.2 As per the recruitment rules and advertisement, Special Competitive Examination was to be conducted in three stages viz. (i) physical test; (ii) objective type written test; and (iii) subjective type written test. Candidates participating in this examination were required to obtain minimum qualifying marks in each stage for male and female candidates and separate physical standard was provided for being eligible for participation. Since all the present petitioners were fulfilling the eligibility criteria prescribed in the rules and the advertisement, they applied and had participated in the selection process. The grievance raised is that though there is a policy for providing 33% women reservation in employment, the same is not provided in the present advertisement. In absence of the provision for women reservation, the petitioners and other similarly situated female candidates approached the respondent Nos.1 and 2 authorities requesting them to provide reservation for women as per the Rules, however, the request was not acceded to by the authorities except oral assurance that it will be taken care of. The petitioners accepting the words of the respondent authorities thought it fit to wait and participated in the selection process. The petitioners participated in the selection process unaware of the fact that no separate qualifying standard for women candidate was provided.

3.3 Prior to the current examination, advertisement was published in the year 2008-09 for the purpose of recruitment by mode-2, i.e. Special Competitive Examination where category-wise posts were mentioned and out of which, certain seats were reserved for women candidates. Pursuant to the said advertisement, examination was conducted and the women candidates who had participated in the selection process were appointed against such reserved post meant for women. However, in the current recruitment, the respondent authorities have not provided for women reservation.

3.4 On 6.10.2017, select list was published by the Selection Board, whereby 376 candidates were included in the select list as against 403 posts advertised. One more list was published on the same day of such candidates, who were qualified, but not included in the select list. The names of the present petitioners were reflected in the list of candidates who were qualified, but not selected, probably, on the ground that such candidates were unable to secure minimum qualifying marks prescribed by the Selection Board.

3.5 While referring to the Rules governing the recruitment and examination, it is stated that the State Government for the purpose of recruitment to the post of Police Sub-Inspector (Unarmed), Class-III has framed the Police Sub-Inspector (Unarmed), Class-III Recruitment Rules of 2008 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Recruitment Rules of 2008') as amended from time to time. The Recruitment Rules of 2008 provides for three modes of appointment to the post of Police SubInspector (Unarmed), Class-III viz. (i) by promotion; (ii) by Special Competitive Examination; and (iii) by direct selection. For the purpose of mode-2, i.e. recruitment by Special Competitive Examination, the State Government, in its Home Department, has framed the rules called The Gujarat Police Sub-Inspector (Unarmed Branch) Special Competitive Examination Rules, 2004 and amended vide notification dated 10.9.2014 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Competitive Examination Rules of 2004').

3.6 So far as women reservation is concerned, the State Government has framed the Gujarat Civil Services (Reservation of Post for Women) Rules, 1997 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Reservation of Post for Women Rules, 1997'), reserving 20% of total post for recruitment in favour of women which now is raised to 33%. In view of this rules, it is stated that while holding the Special Competitive Examination, it was and is obligatory on the part of the respondent authorities to keep post reserved for women candidates, however, the respondent authorities have not adhered to the said statutory obligation.

3.7 During the pendency of the writ petitions, an advertisement No.151/2018-19 came to be published for the post of Police SubInspector (Unarmed), Class-III which led to the filing of the civil applications in all the captioned writ petitions, inter alia, praying for the direction to the respondent authorities to keep certain posts vacant, subject to the outcome of the writ petitions. In the civil applications, the prayer for taking up the main writ petitions for final disposal is also sought for.

3.8 The petitioners, being aggrieved by the non-prescription of women reservation in the recruitment process, have preferred the captioned writ petitions with the aforementioned prayers.