JUDGMENT 1. - The petitioner has approached this court seeking direction in the name of respondents for implementation of the Notification dated January 22, 1997 whereby 10% reservation has been provided to the Female candidates under the Rajasthan Police Subordinate Service Rules, 1989 and for considering her candidature for appointment on the post of Inspector (Telecommunication) with all consequential benefits. 2. It has been averred in the petition that eleven posts of Inspector (Telecommunication) were advertised by the respondents on January 15, 1997. As per the scheme of the Rajasthan Police Subordinate Service Rules, 1989 (for short the Rules of 1989) the post of Inspector is to be filled in 75% by promotion and 25% by direct recruitment by the appointing authority. The State Government published Notification in the Gazette on January 22, 1997 to provide reservation to Female candidates. In the Police Service 10% reservation was provided to them. As per term of the advertisement dated Janauary 15, 1997 the last date for submitting application was January 30, 1997 and since prior to it the Notification dated January 22, 1997 was issued for providing reservation to Female candidates the petitioner being eligible, submitted application on Jan. 30, 1997 for consideration of her candidate against the vacancies reserved for Female candidates. The petitioner, thereafter appeared in the written examination. List of successful candidates was published on January 25, 1997 in which name of the petitioner appeared at No. 21. The petitioner also qualified physical fitness test as well as the interview and final order of successful candidates was issued on August 21, 1997. In all 12 candidates were declared successful and the name of the petitioner finds place at No. 1 in the Reserved List. As no female candidate except the petitioner was declared successful, the petitioner ought to have been given the benefit of reservation but it was not provided. The petitioner submitted representations before the respondents but her grievances were not redressed. The act of respondent in not implementing the notification is arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. 3. The respondents submitted reply and pleaded that Notification was not retrospective in nature, hence the petitioner can not get any advantage from it as process of selection had already been started. 4. I have pondered over the rival submissions and carefully scanned the material on record. 5. 3. The respondents submitted reply and pleaded that Notification was not retrospective in nature, hence the petitioner can not get any advantage from it as process of selection had already been started. 4. I have pondered over the rival submissions and carefully scanned the material on record. 5. It is well settled rule of construction that every statute made is prospective unless it is expressly or by necessary implication made to have retrospective effect. The Notification dated January 22, 1997 was also prospective in nature. It was made effective from the date of its publication. A close look at the Notification demonstrates that 10% of reservations was provided to Female candidates. Admittedly, as per the terms of the advertisement dated January 15, 1997, the last date for submitting the application was January 30, 1997. According to the scheme of the Rules of 1989, the post of Sub-Inspector, which is a lower post is filled through the 45 Rajasthan Public Service Commission (for short the RPSC) but the post of Inspector (Telecommunication) is filled by the appointing authority. Undeningly in the similar circumstances the RPSC for making recruitment to the post of Lecturers, School Education and for various other posts issued advertisement on January 20, 1997 without providing reservation to Female candidates as Notification for providing reservation was not issued till then but immediately after issuance of Notification for reservation dated January 22, 1997 the RPSC issued corrigendum in advertisement on Jan. 30, 1997, wherein it was notified that there will be a reservation for Female candidates in view of Notification dated January 22, 1997. The petitioner has annexed the said corrigendum with the writ petition as Annexure 5. The RPSC is a statutory constitutional body created under the Constitution of India for holding recruitment for various posts in the State of Rajasthan. When the RPSC had implemented the Notification and provided reservation to the Female candidates by issuing corrigendum immediately, the respondents also had to follow the same procedure looking to the fact that last date for submitting the application was January 30, 1997. One post of Inspector (Telecommunication) ought to have been kept reserved for the Female candidate by the respondent in view of Notification dated January 22, 1997. 6. One post of Inspector (Telecommunication) ought to have been kept reserved for the Female candidate by the respondent in view of Notification dated January 22, 1997. 6. The State of Rajasthan being a model employer, took decision to provide reservation to the Female candidates for fulfillment of mandate of the Constitution of India in view of Article 16(4). As the Notification was made effective from the date of its publication i.e. from January 22, 1997 the respondents were duty bound to take notice of it with immediate effect. When last date of submitting the application January 30, 1997 was far away, a corrigendum ought to have been issued by the respondents providing reservation to Female candidates. In the case on hand out of total eleven candidates shown in the select list there is no female candidate selected against the post reserved for the said category and the petitioner has been placed in the reserved list at No. 1. In my considered opinion the act of respondents in not implementing the Notification dated January 22, 1997 is arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. 7. This Court vide interim order dated Sept. 26, 1997 directed respondents to keep one post of Inspector (Telecommunication) reserve in general category. In State of M.P. v. Raghuveer Singh Yadav, 1994(6) SCC 151 their Lordships of the Supreme Court propounded thus - "The candidate who had appeared for the examination and passed the written examination had only legitimate expectation to be considered of their claims according to the rules then in vogue. The amended Rules have only prospective operation. The Government is entitled to conduct selection in accordance with the changed rules and make final recruitment. Obviously no candidate acquired any vested right against the State. Therefore, the State is entitled to withdraw the notification by which it had previously notified recruitment and to issue fresh notification in that regard on the basis of the amended Rules." 8. Ratio of State of M.P. v. Raghuveer Singh Yadav (supra) is fully applicable in the instant case. The selected candidates have not acquired vested right against the State. As one post was kept reserved by the Court, the petitioner is entitled to be considered for appointment against the said post. 9. Ratio of State of M.P. v. Raghuveer Singh Yadav (supra) is fully applicable in the instant case. The selected candidates have not acquired vested right against the State. As one post was kept reserved by the Court, the petitioner is entitled to be considered for appointment against the said post. 9. The writ petition accordingly stands allowed and the respondents are directed to consider the petitioner for appointment to the post of Inspector (Telecommunication) in view of Notification dated January 22, 1997 and appoint her forthwith. The petitioner, however shall be entitled to service benefits from the date of her appointment. Costs easy.Writ Petition Allowed. *******