ORDER :

1. The petitioner's grievance, inter alia, arises from the non-consideration of her candidature for the appointment to the post of Teacher Grade III Level II in Urdu, in the general (female) category meant for widows/divorcees. Pleaded case is that she has scored more marks than the joint cut-off meant for widow/divorcee category, as per the result declared by the Rajasthan Staff Selection Board/respondent no.4. Petitioner has applied for the post question in the divorcee category.

2. Succinct facts first, as pleaded in the petition:

2.1 The respondent recruitment agency issued an advertisement dated 16.12.2022 for Teacher Grade III Level II (Urdu). The petitioner, being eligible, applied for the said post under the female divorcee category.

2.2 The respondent recruitment agency issued a provisionally selected candidates merit list for document verification, and the petitioner was also called for the same. After document verification, the respondent recruitment agency published the result of finally selected candidates on 18.09.2023, along with cut-off marks of respective categories, wherein the petitioner was not included.

2.3 It is further contended that out of 711 advertised posts, 13 posts were kept reserved for widows, and 1 post for the divorcee category. The advertisement clarified that if widow category candidates are not available, the posts reserved for the widow category shall be filled up by divorcee category candidates.

2.4 In the final result, only 11 posts out of 14 reserved posts were filled up in the general widow category, and as per the advertisement/rule, the remaining posts should have been filled up by general divorcee category candidates.

2.5 The petitioner has obtained 197.1944 marks. The cut-off marks for the general female divorcee category are fixed at 203. However, in widow category cut off is lower i.e. 110. She has not been migrated in the general female widow category, even though she has more marks than the cut-off marks in widow category, where posts are lying vacant for lack of suitably meritorious candidates. Hence, the present writ petition.

3. I have heard the learned counsel of the parties in the backdrop of the facts as above.

4. Despite ample opportunity, no reply has been filed by the respondents.

5. It transpires that the controversy raised herein lies in a very narrow compass, i.e.,

(A) Whether the posts advertised in the category of Divorcee and/or Widow are interchangeable in the event of either the non-availability of enough number of divorcees or vice versa, in case an adequate number of widows are not available?

(B) In the event the answer to the above is affirmative, whether a candidate who seeks the benefit of the other category can take advantage of a lower merit list in that category, notwithstanding that in her original category she did not make the cut ?

6. As for the first question above, both the learned counsels agree that in the case of non-availability of suitable candidates in either the Widow or Divorcee category, it is very much permissible as per Clause 5 of the advertisement to interchange the category between widow and a divorcee. To that extent, since there is a consensus, the controversy stands adjudicated.

7. Before adverting to the second question, it is apposite to note that a Coordinate Bench of this Court presided over by my learned brother Arun Bhansali, J., who was earlier seized of the matter, passed the following order dated 02.11.2023 which is reproduced as under:-

“1. Learned counsel for the respondents prays for time to make submissions that once 14 posts for widow and 01 post for divorcee were advertised, only 11 candidates in the widow category have been accorded appointment and rest posts have been kept vacant so far, which can be filled up by the divorcee candidates in terms of the provisions of the Rules and wherein in case, the said three posts are filled up by divorcee candidates, whether the petitioner would stand in merit in that category.

2. List