JUDGMENT : By this writ petition, a challenge is made to the Regulation 4(C)(I) of the Technical Workmen Service Regulations, 1975 (in short “the Regulations of 1975”) and selection on the post of Technical Helper. 2. Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited issued an advertisement to invite applications for the post of Technical Helper. The petitioners applied for the post and appeared in the selection. The petitioners could not get appointment in absence of reservation in favour of women. It is in view of the order dated 29th March, 2012 withdrawing the reservation in favour of the women. The respondents earlier passed a resolution to apply reservation in favour of women, as provided by the State Government. It is by passing an order on 4th April, 2008. The respondents have substituted Regulation 4(C)(1) of the Regulations of 1975 vide the order dated 29th March, 2012, thereby, reservation in favour of women has been withdrawn. If reservation is given to the woman candidates to the extent of 30% of the posts in each category, the petitioners would get appointment. A prayer is, accordingly, made to set aside the order dated 29th March, 2012 and give direction for appointment of the petitioners on the post of Technical Helper. 3. A reference of judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Indira Sawhney & Ors. Vs. Union of India, reported in AIR 1993 SC 477 has been given. The issue of reservation in favour of woman candidates has been discussed therein. In view of the above, the respondents may be directed to give appointment after providing reservation pursuant to the earlier order dated 4th April, 2008. 4. The writ petition has been contested by learned counsel for respondents. It is submitted that petitioners have challenged the order dated 29th March, 2012 without showing their fundamental rights to seek reservation. The reservation in favour of women is, otherwise, opposed to Article 16(2) of the Constitution of India. In view of the above, respondents are not under obligation to provide reservation in favour of female candidates. In reply to the writ petition, reason for denial of reservation has been given in reference to a technical job, for which, female candidates are not fit. In view of the above, challenge to the order dated 29th March, 2012 is not sustainable. 5. In reply to the writ petition, reason for denial of reservation has been given in reference to a technical job, for which, female candidates are not fit. In view of the above, challenge to the order dated 29th March, 2012 is not sustainable. 5. It is also stated that petitioners had earlier filed a writ petition bearing No.2373/2012 to claim similar benefit though in reference to earlier recruitment of the year 2011. The writ petition was dismissed after elaborate discussion. It was held that reservation is matter of policy and is enabling provision in the Constitution of India thus a writ to seek direction for reservation is not maintainable. Having remained unsuccessful in the earlier writ petition, the petitioner has now come out with a challenge to the order dated 29th March, 2012 though it was issued much prior to the advertisement in question. The petitioners, otherwise, appeared in the selection without protest thus cannot now challenge the order dated 29th March, 2012. A prayer is, accordingly, made to dismiss the writ petition. 6. We have considered rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 7. It is a case where an advertisement was issued by the respondents on 28th April, 2015 to invite applications for the post of Technical Helper. The post aforesaid is governed by the Regulations of 1975. No reservation to women was provided therein. The petitioners appeared in the selection without protest to it and challenge to the order dated 29th March, 2012. It was challenged subsequently when petitioners could not find place in the merit. The challenge to the selection or the order dated 29th March, 2012 is not sustainable in the hands of an unsuccessful candidate appeared in the selection without protest. It is in view of judgment of the Apex Court in the case of D. Sarojakumari Vs. R. Helen Thilakom & Ors., reported in (2017) 9 SCC 478 . It is held that a candidate, appeared in the selection without protest to the procedure or the rule, cannot challenge it subsequently on remaining unsuccessful thus on the ground aforesaid itself, writ petition deserves to be dismissed. 8. The issue involved herein has another aspect also. It is in the light of order passed by this court in the earlier writ petition bearing No.2373/2012, Reena Chaudhary Vs. 8. The issue involved herein has another aspect also. It is in the light of order passed by this court in the earlier writ petition bearing No.2373/2012, Reena Chaudhary Vs. Jaipur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited & Anr., decided on 19th May, 2015. The earlier writ petition was also filed to claim reservation in the earlier selection, for which, an advertisement was issued in the year 2011. The claim of reservation was not accepted. Relevant para of the judgment in the case of Reena Chaudhary (supra) is reproduced hereunder for ready reference: “Reservation, as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court is not a fundamental or legal right. The power to make provisions for reservation is only enabling. Reservations can only be claimed where it has been provided for. It is quite apparently a matter of policy. The policy of not providing for reservation to the post of technical helper in the JVVNL for reasons detailed above cannot by any stretch of imagination be said to be arbitrary or unreasonable. The JVVNL is entity different from the government. Hence the government’s policy of reservation on various posts in its employment is of no avail to the petitioners seeking employment with JVVNL as it has not adopted the said policy on the issue of reservation to woman candidates on the post of technical helper. That on merits woman candidates can be and are selected on the post of technical helper is of no event. Exclusion from competition is another matter and if woman candidates were to be debarred from competing on merit with male candidates for the post of technical helper, it would be foul of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. Hence it has not been done. But that logic cannot dictate the right to reservation for woman candidates for the post of technical helper. As earlier held reservation is a matter of policy and only an enabling provision. No writ to direct any kind of reservation is maintainable. In the circumstances, in the advertisement 2011 for recruitment to the post of technical helper, the JVVNL not providing any reservation for woman candidates cannot furnish a cause of action to the petitioner. No contravention of a legal/fundamental right is made out. No dereliction in the performance of a statutory duty established.” 9. The aforesaid finding was recorded by the learned Single Judge in the case of petitioner No.2 herself. No contravention of a legal/fundamental right is made out. No dereliction in the performance of a statutory duty established.” 9. The aforesaid finding was recorded by the learned Single Judge in the case of petitioner No.2 herself. The reservation cannot be claimed as a matter of right and contrary to Article 16(2) of the Constitution of India. Article 16(4) gives power to the Government to provide reservation only to the backward class of citizens. The finding in the earlier writ has attained finality in absence of challenge to the order of the learned Single Judge. The challenge to the order dated 29th March, 2012 has now been made against substitution of Regulation 4(C)(1) of the Regulations of 1975 withdrawing reservation to the women. It cannot be granted in the light of finding recorded by the learned Single Judge in the case of petitioner No.2 herself. 10. The issue involved in the present writ petition has even another angle and needs to be considered in the light of argument raised by learned counsel for the parties. Article 16 of the Constitution of India gives equality of opportunity in public employment and, for ready reference, Article 16 is quoted hereunder: “Article 16: Equality of opportunity in matters of public employment (1) There shall be equality of opportunity for all citizens in matters relating to employment or appointment to any office under the State. (2) No citizen shall, on grounds only of religion, race, caste, sex, descent, place of birth, residence or any of them, be ineligible for, or discriminated against in respect of, any employment or office under the State. (3) Nothing in this article shall prevent Parliament from making any law prescribing, in regard to a class or classes of employment or appointment to an office under the Government of, or any local or other authority within, a State or Union territory, any requirement as to residence within that State or Union territory prior to such employment or appointment. (4) Nothing in this article shall prevent the State from making any provision for the reservation of appointments or posts in favour of any backward class of citizens which, in the opinion of the State, is not adequately represented in the services under the State. (4) Nothing in this article shall prevent the State from making any provision for the reservation of appointments or posts in favour of any backward class of citizens which, in the opinion of the State, is not adequately represented in the services under the State. (4A) Nothing in this article shall prevent the State from making any provision for reservation in matters of promotion to any class or classes of posts in the services under the State in favour of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes which, in the opinion of the State, are not adequately represented in the services under the State. (5) Nothing in this article shall affect the operation of any law which provides that the incumbent of an office in connection with the affairs of any religious or denominational institution or any member of the governing body thereof shall be a person professing a particular religion or belonging to a particular denomination.” 11. Article 16(1) of the Constitution of India provides for equality of opportunity to all the citizens in matters relating to employment or appointment. Article 16(2) imposes a bar against discrimination on the grounds only of religion, race, caste, sex, descent, place of birth, residence or any of them. In view of Article 16(2) of the Constitution of India, no discrimination in the public employment can be made on the ground of sex. It is not required to state that no one can act in violation of the constitutional provision. An exception to provide reservation is given under Article 16(4) of the Constitution of India and it is in favour of backward class of citizens. 12. In view of the above, claim of reservation in favour of women is even hit by Article 16(2) and (4) of the Constitution of India. The reservation to women would cause discrimination in the public employment on the ground of sex. It is not permissible. At this stage, reference of Article 15 of the Constitution of India would be relevant which provides prohibition of discrimination on the ground of religion, race, caste, sex or place of birth. Article 15(3) of the Constitution of India provides that the State Government would not be prevented to make any special provision for women and children. At this stage, reference of Article 15 of the Constitution of India would be relevant which provides prohibition of discrimination on the ground of religion, race, caste, sex or place of birth. Article 15(3) of the Constitution of India provides that the State Government would not be prevented to make any special provision for women and children. The argument can be raised that pursuant to Article 15(3) of the Constitution of India, the State can come out with the Policy to provide reservation in favour of women. The argument aforesaid would be in ignorance of Article 16 of the Constitution of India governing public employment thus cannot be governed by any other Article in conflict to it. Article 16(2) of the Constitution of India bars discrimination on the ground of sex thus Article 15(3) of the Constitution of India cannot be read in conflict to it. In the light of the aforesaid, we cannot give direction to provide reservation in favour of woman candidates and, for that, to set aside the order dated 29th March, 2012. Learned counsel for petitioners has made reference of the judgment of the Constitution Bench of Apex Court in the case of Indira Sawhney & Ors. (supra) to support his argument. Relevant Para 118 of the said judgment has been referred and is quoted hereunder for ready reference: “118. It is necessary to add here a word about reservations for women. Clause (2) of Article 16 bars reservation in services on the ground of sex. Article 15 (3) cannot save the situation since all reservations in the services under the State can only be made under Article 16. Further, women come from both Backward and forward classes. If reservations are kept for women as a class under Article 16 (1), the same inequitous phenomenon will emerge the women from the advanced classes will secure all the posts, leaving those from the backward classes without any. It will amount to indirectly providing statutory reservations for the advanced classes as such, which is impermissible under any of the provisions of Article 16. However, there is no doubt that women are a vulnerable section of the society, whatever the strata to which they belong. They are more disadvantaged than men in their own social class. It will amount to indirectly providing statutory reservations for the advanced classes as such, which is impermissible under any of the provisions of Article 16. However, there is no doubt that women are a vulnerable section of the society, whatever the strata to which they belong. They are more disadvantaged than men in their own social class. Hence reservations for them on that ground would be fully justified, if they are kept in the quota of the respective class, as for other categories of persons, as explained above. If that is done, there is no need to keep a special quota for women as such and whatever the percentage-limit on the reservations under Article 16, need not be exceeded.” 13. The perusal of finding of the Apex Court in the para quoted above shows that Article 16(2) of the Constitution of India bars reservation in service on the ground of sex. The finding has further been recorded that Article 15(3) of the Constitution of India cannot save the situation since all the reservations in service under the State can be made only under Article 16, thereby, application of Article 15 of the Constitution of India in public employment has not been accepted. Further observation in reference to Article 16(1) of the Constitution of India has also been made. If the finding therein is taken in consonance to the Constitution of India, reservation for women would infringe Article 16(2). The Apex Court, however, made observation that women are vulnerable sections of the society. They are more disadvantaged than men in their own social class. The reservation on the aforesaid ground would be fully justified. 14. The question for our consideration is as to whether reservation can be provided based on observation aforesaid. In our opinion, it can be by amending the Constitution to carve out a new category of vulnerable class for reservation and, for that, to even amend Article 16(2) of the Constitution of India. In absence of it, reservation to women would be in violation of Article 16(2) of the Constitution of India and, for which, finding has been recorded by the Apex Court in specific terms thus cannot be ignored. In absence of it, reservation to women would be in violation of Article 16(2) of the Constitution of India and, for which, finding has been recorded by the Apex Court in specific terms thus cannot be ignored. In view of the above, unless Constitution of India is amended as per the observation of the Apex Court in the para quoted above, claim or even reservation in favour of women is hit by Article 16(2) of the Constitution of India. The Apex Court has not covered it by Article 16(4) of the Constitution of India as there exists advantageous and disadvantageous class of women thus it would be opposed to Article 16 of the Constitution of India. In view of the above, prayer made in the writ petition cannot be accepted. 15. We are, however, not in agreement to the respondents that women cannot work on the post in question thus reasoning aforesaid is not acceptable as women can also undertake technical work but in view of the discussion made above, we are unable to accept the prayer made by the petitioners. 16. Accordingly, writ petition is dismissed with no order as to costs.