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. 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 the petition on 06.11.2023.” 8. Apropos above order passed by this Court, it transpires that posts are indeed lying vacant in the Widow category. It is though not clear whether it is 2 or 3 posts. 2. List the petition on 06.11.2023.” 8. Apropos above order passed by this Court, it transpires that posts are indeed lying vacant in the Widow category. It is though not clear whether it is 2 or 3 posts. While on one hand, the learned counsel for the petitioner states that there are 3 posts lying vacant, on the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents states that, as per his instructions, only 2 posts are lying vacant. 9. Be that as it may, reverting to the second question supra, once the categories are interchangeable as per the advertised Clause 5, it is mandatory on the part of the recruitment agency that, subject to the merit list maintained by them, the next eligible candidate, be it from Widow or Divorcee category, has to be offered the post unless all the posts stand exhausted. In other words, only in case, if a candidate is either not eligible and/or not meritorious, being below the cut-off marks of the category to which she is being migrated because of non-availability of enough candidates in that category, she can then be declined her claim to be adjusted by changing her category. 10. There is no dispute in the present case that the petitioner has got more marks, i.e., 197, than the last selected candidate in the Widow category, who scored 110. To that extent, her merit is not in dispute. The only dispute is whether she could be considered in the category of Widow having obtained lower marks than the cut-off in the Divorcee category, which are stated to be 203. 11. In view of my discussion hereinabove, it becomes apparent that once the category of Divorcee has to be shifted to Widow by giving an advantage of the vacant post, her merit has to be considered as per the cut-off marks in the Widow category. I may hasten to add here that the same may result in an incongruent situation where the widows who may have, though, obtained lesser marks than the petitioner, but since competed in their own category, may be rendered junior her because in divorcee category the cut-off marks are much higher, as noted hereinabove. I may hasten to add here that the same may result in an incongruent situation where the widows who may have, though, obtained lesser marks than the petitioner, but since competed in their own category, may be rendered junior her because in divorcee category the cut-off marks are much higher, as noted hereinabove. It is, therefore, made clear that in case the department is maintaining separate seniority lists for divorcee and widows, then the divorcee who has been given the advantage of lower cut-off marks in the category of widow shall be kept at the bottom of the seniority list of the widows. 12. At this stage, on a Court query, Mr. Pankaj Sharma, AAG, appearing for respondent No. 1 to 3, states that a common seniority list is being maintained after appointment for both categories of Widows and Divorcees. Being so, no prejudice would, therefore, be caused to the widows in case the petitioner, who is from the Divorcee category, is given the advantage of appointment in the Widow category. 13. As an upshot, the writ petition is allowed with the direction to the respondents to consider her candidature in the Widow category provided, of course, the same has to be in accordance with her merit. In case it is found that there are candidates in the divorcee category who have obtained more marks than her, first the offer of appointment shall be made to them, and in case no one joins, then only, the petitioner shall be offered the appointment in the order of the merit list maintained by the Respondent No. 4. 14. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.