KESHOTE, J. - (1.) IN this petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of INdia, the petitioners, five in number, are praying for grant of following relief. " (i) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature thereof held that amended provisions of Rule 4 of amended Rules, 2002 limiting 3% reservation quota on horizontal basis is bad in law and ultra vires to the provisions of Section 33 of the Act of 1995 and it be further declared that the petitioners and similarly situated disabled candidates are entitled to get 3% quota in the same manner as other reservations being provided; (ii) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature thereof thereby quash the merit list prepared by RPSC and direct the respondents to again prepare the fresh merit list after considering the aforesaid roster for disabled candidates and also prepare a separate merit list for disabled candidates; (iii) any other order or direction which the Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper be also passed and cost be awarded. "
(2.) THE petitioners have made the challenge to Rule 4 of the amended Rajasthan Disabled Persons Employment Rules as amended in 2002, on the ground that it is ultra vires of Section 33 of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995. Everyday one or two writ petitions of identical in nature are coming up before the Court. Petitioners are unemployed youth and it is not gainsay that filing of the petitions heavily costs their parents. In D. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 578/2005 (def.) the petitioners therein have raised an identical issue and this court has passed a general order but that does not appear to have been duly notified to all concerned and affected persons and it may be one of the reason that everyday petitions of this nature are coming up. The validity of the Rule 4 of the Rules aforesaid has been challenged in that writ petition also. The writ petition has been filed, though by individual, but ultimately whatever decision is given therein will be a decision in rem. That apart if we go by the prayer made in that writ petition, the petitioners therein have not restricted the writ prayer only in their favour but to all similarly situated candidates. Looking to these facts and keeping in view the fact that the candidates of this category are unemployed youth, it is made clear that whatever the decision is given in that writ petition and other similar writ petitions already filed and admitted, will be the judgment in rem and similarly situated candidates are not required to approach the court thereby unnecessarily putting financial burden on their parents as well as unnecessarily increasing the workload of the court by filing avoidable writ petitions. In this matter the notices are not required to issue to the respondents as the decision in D. B. Civil Writ petition No. 578/2005 (Def.) will be decision in rem and same will cover the cases of all the similarly situated candidates and will also cover the cases of the petitioners.
(3.) REGISTRY is directed to tag this writ petition with D. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 578/2005 (Def. ) .;