ORDER : 1. These petitions have been filed by the petitioner seeking a direction to the respondent- Rajasthan Staff Selection Board, Jaipur (‘the Board’) to consider the candidature of the petitioner in the category of General (Widow) for direct recruitment to the post of Supervisor and Laboratory Assistant. 2. It is inter alia indicated in the writ petitions that the petitioner had applied for the post of Supervisor pursuant to the advertisement no. 4/2018 dated 13.3.2018 and Laboratory Assistant pursuant to the advertisement no. 10/2018 dated 9.5.2018 being conducted by the Board. The petitioner applied in the General (Female) category and indicated her marital status as ‘Married’. Admission cards were issued to the petitioner for written examination, which was held for the post of Supervisor on 6.1.2019 and for the post of Laboratory Assistant on 3.2.2019, wherein, the petitioner appeared and results are yet to be declared. 3. It is indicated that unfortunately petitioner’s husband expired on 23.2.2019. Based on the said event of death of her husband, the petitioner has sought change of her category from General (Female) to General (Widow) and submitted the representation to the respondents however, the respondents have neither changed the category nor responded to the representation made by the petitioner and, therefore, the relief as indicated hereinbefore has been sought. 4. When the writ petitions came up before the Court, the notices of the same were ordered to be served on the learned counsel representing the Board. 5. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the issue raised in the present writ petitions seeking change in the category is squarely covered by the Division Bench judgment of this Court in State of Rajasthan vs. Jamna Rajpurohit, 2013 (4) CDR 2275 (Raj.), wherein, the direction in similar circumstances given by the learned Single Judge for change of category was upheld by the Division Bench and, therefore, the writ petitions deserve to be allowed and the respondents be directed to change the category of the petitioner from General (Female) to General (Widow). 6. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the Board made submissions that the Board has issued general guidelines, wherein, the circumstance, as in the present case, has been taken into consideration and it has been provided as under:- ^^dksbZ efgyk vH;fFkZuh tks vkosnu ds vfUre fnukad ds mijkUr fo/kok gks tkrh gS rks ml Js.kh esa ykHk ÁkIr djus dh ik= gksxh] ;fn %& 1- tgka p;u fyf[kr ijh{kk vkSj lk{kkRdkj ds ek/;e ls fd;k tkuk gS] ogka lk{kkRdkj esa mifLFkr gksus ls iwoZA 2- tgka p;u dsoy fyf[kr ijh{kk ;k ;FkkfLFkfr] dsoy lk{kkRdkj ds ek/;e ls fd;k tkuk gS] ogka fyf[kr ijh{kk ;k lk{kkRdkj esa lfEefyr gksus ls iwoZ] bl Js.kh esa ifjxf.kr gksus dk lk{; ÁLrqr djsxhA** 7. It was submitted that as per the general guidelines, if a female candidate became widowed after the last date of application, then she would be entitled for change in her category if the death takes place (i) in case where the selection is to take place on the basis of written examination and interview, before the interview and (ii) in case where the selection is to take place on the basis of written examination, before the written examination and not thereafter and as in the present case the husband of the petitioner has died after the written examination, as per general guidelines, her category cannot be changed. 8. I have considered submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the material available on record. 9. The dates and the circumstances are not in dispute, wherein, the husband of the petitioner has died after the written examinations for post of Supervisor and Laboratory Assistant have been held on 6.1.2019 and 3.2.2019, respectively and category is sought to be changed on account of the said event. 10. This Court in the case of Jamna Rajpurohit (supra) in similar circumstances where the death of the husband of petitioner therein had occurred after the written examination, inter alia laid down as under: “13. It remains a matter of hard reality and of fact that each of the writ-petitioners was a married woman with her husband very much alive at the time of her filling up the application form. They had submitted the form and filled in the category as applicable. It had been an unfortunate aspect that after filling up of the forms, they lost their respective husbands. They had submitted the form and filled in the category as applicable. It had been an unfortunate aspect that after filling up of the forms, they lost their respective husbands. The cases of the writ-petitioners could not have been considered as that of seeking any ‘permission’ to change the category. In fact, their category got changed for vis major over which, they had no control; rather they would have never wished it to happen. 14. Vis major i.e. act of God, refers to an occurrence taking place exclusively due to natural causes, and being of external nature, and further being the one which cannot be anticipated or provided against. Sudden demise of a person remains essentially a matter beyond the control and anticipation of human beings. Such an unfortunate event could nevertheless happen, as has happened in the present cases. The appellants cannot be considered justified in suggesting that such an unfortunate event can also be ignored by them with a perfunctory reference to the stipulation like the one referred above. It remains trite that the law does not envisage nor countenance an absurdity or impossibility. The propositions of the appellants, running against the very fundamentals of law, are required to be rejected. 15. We are further of the view that when the appellants have provided for a special reservation to a category of persons requiring help and support of the State i.e., the women suffering widowhood, any provision in that relation ought to be applied with a practical approach and with due respect to the ground realities. The very object behind reservation for widow category would be defeated, if not rendered illusory, if the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case of a woman suffering widowhood after filling up of the application form but before completion of recruitment process, are ignored and she is not considered for appointment in widow category. We are at one that the observations in the orders impugned that in these cases, the concerned authorities were rather under an obligation to consider the candidature of the writ-petitioners in widow category.” (Emphasis supplied) 11. The ratio of the aforesaid judgment applies on all force to the present case. 12. We are at one that the observations in the orders impugned that in these cases, the concerned authorities were rather under an obligation to consider the candidature of the writ-petitioners in widow category.” (Emphasis supplied) 11. The ratio of the aforesaid judgment applies on all force to the present case. 12. So far as the general guidelines formulated by the respondent Board is concerned, the restriction by the Board to change the category on account of an unfortunate event like death of the applicant’s husband to a particular point of time cannot be countenanced. 13. It would have been perfectly justified if the Board had provided for restricting the prayer before the declaration of results, however, restricting the same to written examination in the present case, when such an unfortunate event is not in the hands of the applicant, is wholly unjustified and, therefore, the said guidelines, which are contrary to the Division Bench judgment of this Court, cannot restrict the change in category sought by the petitioner. 14. In view of the above discussion, the writ petitions are allowed. The respondent Board is directed to change the category of the petitioner from General (Female) to General (Widow) in the recruitments for the post of Supervisor and Laboratory Assistant.