MADAN, J. - (1.) THIS special appeal is directed against the judgment dt. 04/10/1999 passed by the learned Single Judge dismissing SBCWP No. 2001/98 filed by the appellant.
(2.) ADMITTED facts are that in pursuance of an advertisement (Ann. 1) issued on 07/5/97 by the District Education Officer Dholpur (respondent No. 3), inviting applications for eight posts of PTI Grade III for the year 1997-98, the interviews were held on 17/5/97 wherein Kumari Anita Dwivedi (appellant) was also interviewed on her application. As a result of interviews taken of respective candidates who had applied for aforesaid post, select list was prepared and appointments were given to the successful and meritorious candidates and the selection process pursuant to the aforesaid advertisement had already over, but the appellant has preferred aforesaid writ petition challenging the advertisement on the ground that despite there having been 20% reservation for women under Rule 7-B of the Rajasthan Education Subordinate Service Rules, 1971 (for short the Rules), to which provision was inserted vide notification dt 22/1/1997, the respondent Department failed to make any reservation for women in the advertisement dt. 7/5/97 (Annex. 1) for the posts of Physical Training Instructor. In the prayer clause, the appellant sought relief for directing the respondents to appoint her on the post of Physical Training Instructor in quota reserved for woman candidates as per her merit. It was the case of the appellant that in combined merit list, her name was shown at S. No. 110 whereas in separate merit list of woman candidates, her name appeared at S. No. l. In the counter the respondents though admitted by stating in reply to para 8 of writ petition that the petitioner stood at S. No. 110 in the merit list, but in Para 9 of the reply categorically denied the contents of para 9 of the writ petition stating them as misleading, because according to them there was no separate list of woman candidates. It was also the case of the appellant in para 6 of the writ petition that in writ petition Nos. 4986/96 and 4987/96 filed by Sunita Sharma & Tushti Sharma respectively, this Court had ordered to keep two posts reserved for woman candidates but those petitions had been dismissed ultimately on 18/11/97, thereby aforesaid two posts had fallen vacant, for which she is entitled to be appointed by virtue of her merit being topper in the women's list. Against this, the respondents in their counter in para 6 at page 4 specifically pleaded that consequent upon dismissal of aforesaid two writ petitions, though two posts had fallen vacant but out of which one was filled up in compliance of the decision of this Court rendered in writ petition No. 3116/97 and thereby as per merit list of the year 1996-97, the appointment was given to one Rakesh Kumari, inasmuch as another one post stood vacant was kept for being filled up by advertisement under the order of this Court as against session of the year 1998-99. It was also pleaded in the counter that since name of the appellant was not in the merit of 1996-97, she could not have been given appointment as against other post kept vacant for 1996-97, inasmuch as since there was no post reserved for woman candidates and further she was not in the merit list prepared for general category for the year 1997-98, she could not be given appointment to the post in question, as has been communicated to her by letter dt. 04/04/98 (Ann. 8), as per which she was conveyed that a training degree is recognised only when it is conferred by a University recognised by UGC or approved by National Council for Teacher Education (for short NCTE) and that since the Agra University had not applied to NCTE for recognition, therefore, B. P. Ed. degree of the Agra University in favour of the appellant could not be considered. In counter the respondents in para 13 had pleaded that since the B. P. Ed. degree of Agra University is not recognised by the NCTE as is evident from its letter dt. 30/3/98 which was issued by the NCTE upon the NCTE Act, 1993 having come into force from 1. 07. 1995, the appellant cannot be given consideration as she was having no recognised degree of qualification prescribed for the post in question. Be that as it may the learned Single Judge under the impugned judgment dismissed the writ petition of the appellant holding that since the whole process of selection stood over, the appellant not having challenged the advertisement dt. 7/5/97 in time and further the selection process having already started for the next session 1998-99 for the post in question in which there has already been reservation made for women, no interference is called for in writ jurisdiction. Hence this special appeal. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned judgment, we find that there is no dispute that Rule 7b was added vide Notification dt. 22/1/97 to the Rules which reads as under: "7b. Reservation of vacancies for Woman candidates � Reservation of vacancies for woman candidates shall be 20%, categorywise. in direct recruitment. In the event of non-availability of the eligible and suitable woman candidates in a particular year, the vacancies so reserved for them shall be filled in accordance with the normal procedure and such vacancies shall not be carried forward to the subsequent year and the reservation shall be treated as horizontal reservation i. e. the reservation of woman candidates shall be adjusted proportionately in the respective category to which the woman candidates belong. "
(3.) ONCE the notification has been issued and by which Rule 7b was admittedly added to the service Rules, it was incumbent upon the State Government and its department to comply with requirements made under the provisions of the service rules before issuing notification inviting applications for vacant. posts by making reservation of woman candidates. By virtue of provisions made under Rule 7b of the Rules, 20% reservation has been woman candidates in direct recruitment. Now the question arises as to whether these provisions made for reservation under Rule 7b have been complied with by the department (respondents) in issuing the advertisement dated 07/05/97 for eight advertised posts of PTI for the year 1997-98. A careful perusal of the impugned -advertisement dt. 07/05/97 makes it clear that out of advertised eight posts, four posts were meant for General Category whereas rest of posts ware reserved for SC/st candidates. However, no reservation was made for woman candidates whereas two posts viz. 20%. of advertised eight posts ought to have been reserved for woman candidates as is provided under Rule 7b of the Rules and thereby failure on the part of the respondents (State & department) in not having reserved 20% of advertised posts for woman candidates has resulted in violating statutory provision of Rule 7b of the Rules. This leads us to the question as to whether the impugned advertisement dated 07/05/97 having been issued in violation of Rule 7b of the Rules and without making 20% reservation for woman candidates can be set aside especially when the selection process pursuant to the impugned advertisement was already over before approaching the court in writ petition filed on 10/4/98. In our considered opinion admittedly it was well within the knowledge of the appellant when she had appeared for interview for the posts advertised that the impugned advertisement has violated the statutory provisions of Rule 7b of the Rules as it had not made 20% reservation for woman candidates. But curiously enough she challenged the entire advertisement when she failed to get appointment after the entire selection process pursuant to the impugned advertisement had been over as soon as selected candidates were given appointments for the advertised posts. ;