ARUN MADAN,J. - (1.) This special appeal is directed against the judgment dated 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 07.05.97 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 Edcuation- Subordinate Service Rules, 1971 (for short the Rules), to which provision was inserted vide notification dated 22.1.1997, the respondent Department failed to make any reservation for women in the advertisement dated 7.5.97 (Ann.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.
(3.) 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.1. 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.;