Judgment :- (Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of The Constitution of India for the issuance of a Writ of Declaration to declare that the allotment of posts reserved for Women under the General Category exclusively to the Destitute Widows for the Group IV Services selection for the year 1998-99 is illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional.) The petitioner has filed initially, O.A.No.4514/2000 on the file of the Tamilnadu Administrative Tribunal and the same has been transferred to the file of this Court and re-numbered as Writ Petition No. 32147 of 2005. 2. The learned Senior Counsel has contended that Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission has called for application for selection and appointment to the post of Junior Assistant-cum-Typist in advertisement No.28/98 and since the petitioner possesses the required qualifications, she had applied for the said post. In the said advertisement, in paragrah 4 it is stated that, 30% of vacancies had been reserved for women candidates who possess the prescribed qualification and preference would be given to destitute widows. In the written examination conducted by the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission, the petitioner had secured 275.94 marks. Since the respondents had followed an indifferent method in filling up the vacancies, the petitioner was not selected even though she secured 275.94 marks, whereas, the cut off marks for General Category of women was fixed only at 195.25. According to the learned Senior Counsel, entire 350 vacancies had been filled up by appointing destitute widows, since cut off marks prescribed for the destitute widows was only 120, whereas for the women, who appeared under the General women quota, the cut off marks prescribed was 311.13. The last candidate who was appointed under the category "destitute widow" had secured above 195.24 but below 275.94. Since a lower cut off marks was prescribed for the destitute widows, all the vacancies earmarked for women had been filled up only by destitute widows and not even one vacancy was filled by a woman candidate who had applied under the "general women quota". Hence, according to the learned Senior Counsel, entire selection process with regard to the women candidate has to be set aside, as prima facie that is illegal. 3. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission has contended that altogether under the destitute widows category itself, more than 350 candidates had applied for the post. 3. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission has contended that altogether under the destitute widows category itself, more than 350 candidates had applied for the post. The number of candidates who had applied under the destitute category exceeded the number of vacancies. Consequently, there was no other option for the Commission but to fix a minimum qualifying mark for destitute widows and that had been fixed as 120. Since more than 350 candidates secured above 120 marks, entire vacancies had been filled by the destitute widows. Hence, the selection process done by the Commission is infact to manage the peculiar situation that arose in the selection of Junior Assistant-cum-Typist in the year 1998-99. 4. That apart, the learned counsel for the respondents further contended, as per notification of the Service Commission also, only 30% of the vacancies are reserved for women and preference will be given to the destitute widows. Basing on this, since the candidates who applied under the category "destitute widows" had scored more than the eligible marks of 120, the Commission had no other option, but to fill up the entire vacancies by the destitute widows. That apart, the learned Counsel has argued that to avoid such circumstances, in the year 2000 Government had issued GO.MS.No.178 (P & A) department dated 11.09.2000. As far as this G.O. is concerned, only 10% of vacancies available had to be filled up by the destitute widows. Unfortunately, this G.O. has been given prospective effect and not retrospective effect. Learned Counsel further contended that if selection is undone on that basis, that would have greater repercussions and hence the writ petition has to be dismissed. 5. I have considered the submissions made by both the counsel. In the notification issued by the respondent Commission, it has been clearly mentioned that 30% of vacancies are reserved for women. Apart from this, it has been stated that preference will be given to the destitute widows. Besides this, there is no whisper in the said advertisement that separate cut off marks will be given to the destitute widows and basing on that their claims will be considered and that for candidates who appear under the "general women quota", a higher eligibility mark will be prescribed. What has been stated in the notification is preference will be given to the destitute widows. What has been stated in the notification is preference will be given to the destitute widows. In my opinion, if more than one candidate had secured same marks, then preference has to be given to the destitute widow and not as done by the Commission, viz., prescribing a lower eligibility mark to the destitute widows and filling the entire vacancies by the destitute widows. Consequently, not even a single vacancy had been filled by the women who had applied under the "general quota for women" Hence, the process of selection with regard to filling the vacancies earmarked for the women has been done basing on a wrong process adopted by the respondent department. That apart, in my view, though in the notification, it has been stated that the claims of the destitute widows will be considered along with the women candidate who had applied under the General Women Quota but one wishper that destitute widows will be given preferential treatment by prescribing a lower eligibility mark besides having earmarked 30% of the vacancies for the Women Candidates, extending a different treatment totally for the candidates who had applied under the women quota and depriving them totally is illegal and also contrary to the notification which has been issued by the respondent for selection and appointment to the post of Junior Assistant-cum-Typist. 6. Learned Senior Counsel has submitted that at the time of admission, one vacancy has been reserved and the learned counsel for the respondent has also confirmed that still that vacancy is available. As such when a query has been put to the learned counsel for the respondents, in the event of negative judgment to the claim of the petitioner, how that vacancy can be filled, he has fairly stated by applying the process which has been adopted in the year 1998-99 that vacancy will also be filled up by the destitute widow. 7. In my opinion, after calling for application from the women under the regular women quota as well as from the destitute widows, filling up the entire vacancies by one group is illegal and also a total preferential treatment has been given to one category. Hence, in my opinion atleast one vacancy which has been reserved at the time of appointment can be allowed to the woman who had applied under the General Women Quota. Hence, in my opinion atleast one vacancy which has been reserved at the time of appointment can be allowed to the woman who had applied under the General Women Quota. Since the petitioner alone has come to this Court challenging the process, she can be accommodated in the said vacancy which will not cause any hardship to the candidates who had already been selected and joined the said posts. 8. With the above observations, the writ petition is ordered. Such exercise is to be done by the respondent department, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No Costs.