JUDGMENT :

MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA, J.

1. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner, an aspiring candidate for appointment on the post of Civil Judge (Junior Division) and Judicial Magistrate in the Rajasthan Judicial Services, has challenged the legality and validity of the merit list prepared category-wise after preliminary examinations and published vide notice dated 11.01.2022, as also her non-inclusion by giving benefit of horizontal reservation as widow in ST category. The alternative ground, on which the petition rests, is that as the marks obtained by the petitioner are higher than the cut-off marks in the general category by operating horizontal reservation for widow, applying the rule of migration of the reserved category candidate by virtue of merit into general category, the petitioner was entitled to be placed in the merit list of the general (widow).

2. An advertisement was issued on 22.07.2021 by respondents inviting applications for appointment on 120 posts of Civil Judge (Junior Division) and Judicial Magistrate in the Rajasthan Judicial Services. Pursuant to that advertisement, the petitioner and large number of candidates applied.

3. The scheme of examination, as envisaged under the rules and so stated in the advertisement, comprised of a preliminary examination for the purpose of screening and preparing merit list (category-wise) being 15 times the number of vacancies in the category. The second stage of the examination comprised of written test followed by interview. The rule as well as the advertisement make it clear that the marks obtained by the candidates in the preliminary examination shall not be counted for the purposes of preparation of final select list. The advertisement dated 22.07.2021, while providing reservation both vertical as well as horizontal, though provided for horizontal reservation for widow category-wise, no such reservation for widow was provided in the ST, EWS and MBC. The petitioner admittedly belongs to ST category, for which no horizontal reservation for the category of widow was provided, though there was horizontal reservation for women. The petitioner, without any demur or protest to such a scheme providing for no reservation for widows in ST category, participated in the preliminary examination. The petitioner, while subjecting herself to the process of selection, did not challenge the prescription contained in clause 15 of the advertisement, which provided that the number of candidates to be admitted to the main examination will be 15 times the total number of vacancies (category-wise).

4. After conducting preliminary examination, the respondents published merit list being 15 times the number of vacancies category-wise vide notice dated 11.01.2022. The petitioner, being disappointed as she was not placed in any of the lists, has now approached this Court challenging the process of selection as comprised in the scheme of the rules and advertisement.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner made twofold submissions.

The first submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the respondents, while providing horizontal reservation in different categories provided for benefit of reservation for widow as a class by itself, as far as the General, SC and OBC are concerned, but no such benefit of horizontal reservation for women belonging to ST category was provided, which is per se arbitrary, discriminatory and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, the respondents have not identified and recognized widows as category by themselves, for the purposes of grant of horizontal reservation category-wise, provided by the constitutional mandate to apply the policy of reservation uniformly to all the categories. Exclusion of some of the categories like ST, EWS and MBC has resulted in hosti