The stipulation prohibiting alteration of particulars in the application form does not apply to cases where a woman candidate is rendered a widow after filling up the application form upon demise of her husband.

1. - These four intra-court appeals, involving an identical question on similar nature facts and arising out of similar nature orders passed in the respective writ petitions, have been considered together; and are taken up for disposal by this common order.

2. Each of these appeals is reportedly time-barred by a few days and some of them carry other defects too. However, looking to the subject-matter, while ignoring delay and other defects, we have heard the learned counsel for the appellants on merits.

3. The relevant common features of these appeals are that the respondents herein filled up the respective application forms offering their candidature in different recruitment's processes taken up by the appellants for the posts of Teacher Grade-III and Teacher Grade-II.2 DBSAW No. 82/2013 With 3 connected appeals Each of the respondents was a married woman at the time of filling up the application form; and offered her candidature accordingly. However, unfortunately, the husband of each of the respondents expired after her filling up the form but before completion of the recruitment process. The appellants having provided special reservation for widow, divorcee and destitute women, the respondents made the prayer for consideration of their candidature against widow category. The appellants declined such a prayer with reference to the stipulations in the respective advertisements that no alteration in the particulars stated in the application form was permissible after the last date for submission of the form. Aggrieved, the respondents preferred the respective writ petitions, which have been allowed by the orders sought to be questioned in these intra-court appeals.

4. In fact, the writ petition filed by the respondent of SAW No. 82/2013, Ms. Jamna Rajpurohit, being CWP No. 8899/2012, came to be allowed by a learned Single Judge of this Court on 29.08.2012. Thereafter, the writ petitions filed by the respondents of other appeals, being CWP Nos. 2480/2012, 2734/2012 and 4798/2012 respectively, were allowed by another learned Single Judge of this Court on 13.09.2012, essentially following the decision in the case of Ms. Jamna Rajpurohit.

5. The relevant factual aspects could be noticed as follows: The respondent of SAW No. 82/2013, Ms. Jamna Rajpurohit (hereafter referred to as the 'writ-petitioner') filed the writ petition (CWP No.8899/2012) with the submissions that pursuant to an advertisement dated 27.02.2012 (Annex.1) inviting applications for3 DBSAW No. 82/2013 With 3 connected appeals Direct Recruitment Competitive Examination-2012 for the post of Teacher Grade-III under Zila Parishad, Pali, she applied by filling up on-line application form on 24.03.2012. At the relevant time, she was falling in general category and filled up the form accordingly. The writ-petitioner was called for written examination on 02.06.2012 and appeared therein. However, unfortunately, the husband of the writ-petitioner expired on 18.06.2012. Thereafter, result of the examination taken by the writ-petitioner was declared on 24.08.2012. In the meanwhile, she had submitted a representation on 02.07.2012 for consideration of her candidature under widow category for her husband having expired. The District Examination Controller, Pali, of course, recommended her case for sympathetic consideration to the Secretary, Panchayati Raj Department, Government of Rajasthan. However, the claim of the writ-petitioner for consideration of her candidature in widow category came to be rejected on 08.08.2012 (Annex. 9) with reference to clause 19 (1) of the advertisement, which provided that no alteration was permissible in the particulars stated in the on-line application form after the last date of submission of the application. Accordingly, the Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Pali informed the writ-petitioner about rejection of her representation under the communication dated 24.08.2012 (Annex.10).

6. Assailing the aforesaid communication dated 24.08