1995 Supreme(Raj) 890
V.S.KOKJE
Aruny Piyari – Appellant
Versus
State – Respondent
Advocates:
For the Petitioners: M. Mridul, M.S. Singhvi, P.P. Choudhary, Sangeet Lodha, B.N. Kala, Mahesh Boda, C.P. Trivedi, V.K. Mathur, I.K. Soni, I.R. Choudhary, K.L. Soni, S.P. Arora, R.K. Singhal, C.S. Mandora, K.R. Choudhary, Vijay Mehta, Anil Bachawat, Bhanu Prakash, L.D. Khatri, S.N. Trivedi, Rewa Chand, R.P. Vyas, G.K. Goyal, Hemant Shrimalee, R.K. Soni, L.R. Choudhary, Sandeep Bhandawat, Pradeep Shah, V.K. Mathur, Mukesh Vyas
For the Respondents:Vijay Bishnoi, Advocate.
JUDGMENT
1. - These petitions are a sequel to the decision given by this Court in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3450 of 1994 Ghewar Ram v. State of Rajasthan and others, decided on January 31, 1995. In that petition reservation of posts in favour of the female candidates without there being any provision in the Rules governing the recruitment was under challenge. This Court held that no reservation in favour of female candidates or any other candidates could be made by mere executive instructions without amending the Rules governing the recruitment to the concerned service. All reservation against the Rules incorporated in the advertisement concerned in that case were quashed and the respondents were directed to continue the process of selection without applying the provision for reservation in the advertisement which were against the Rules.
2. After this decision, the respondents by a Circular dated April 5, 1995 directed all the Chief Executive Officers and Secretaries to all the Zila Parshads in the State, not to prepare in future different merit lists of male and female candidates and to prepare a common merit list. The Circular also contained a direction to review the merit lis
Click Here to Read the rest of this document