Order : 1. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant fairly submits that the issue involved in the instant special appeal writ has already been decided by this Hon’ble Court in D.B. Special Appeal Writ No.176/2020 (Bhagwat Singh & Ors. v. State of Rajasthan & Ors.) and other connected matters vide order dated 20.07.2020, the operative portion whereof is reproduced hereunder: “18. A perusal of the Circular dated 23.6.19 issued by the State Government for implementing the reservation provided vide notifications dated 13.2.19 and 19.2.19, reveals that so far as the notification dated 13.2.19 providing for enhanced reservation for MBC category i.e. from 1% to 5% of the vacancies advertised has been implemented for all the undergoing recruitments irrespective of their stage whereas, the reservation provided for EWS category was made applicable only to those recruitments wherein the recruitment process was at the nascent stage and it was possible to issue fresh advertisements so as to extend an opportunity to eligible candidates to apply for recruitment against the posts to be reserved for EWS category pursuant to the notification dated 19.2.19. While giving effect to the enhanced percentage of reservation provided for MBC category vide notification dated 13.2.19 in the recruitments where the examination had already been conducted and the results were to be declared, lest the rights of the existing candidates competing for recruitment to the posts advertised may not be adversely affected, it was notified that to the extent of enhanced percentage of reservation provided for MBC category, new posts shall be created. Apparently, different criteria for implementation of the enhanced reservation provided for MBC category and the fresh reservation provided to EWS category was adopted by the State Government keeping in view that reservation for MBC category to the extent of 1% was already there and the candidates eligible to avail the benefits had already applied in the said category and therefore, on account of implementation of enhanced percentage of reservation for MBC category, no prejudice was likely to be caused to the aspirant for recruitment to the posts advertised whereas, the reservation for EWS was introduced for the first time and therefore, the candidates eligible to avail the benefit of the reservation, had no occasion to apply for the posts in EWS category. In this view of the matter, the action of the State in adopting different criteria for implementation of the enhanced percentage of the reservation provided to the MBC category and fresh reservation provided to EWS category in no manner can be said to be irrational, unreasonable, illegal and arbitrary so as to violative of Article 14 & 16 of the Constitution of India . 19. It is not in dispute that before the issuance of the Circular dated 23.6.19 implementing the reservation provided vide notifications dated 13.2.19 and 19.2.19, the recruitment to the post of Nurse Gr.II pursuant to advertisement dated 30.5.18 was at the advance stage inasmuch as, after due consideration of the eligibility of the candidates applying for the recruitment on the said posts, a list of the eligible candidates two times the advertised vacancies had already been issued on 17.6.19 and the candidates were called upon for verification of the documents. It is pertinent to note that as per second proviso to Rule 19 of the Rules of 1965, in case of appointment to the posts other than Pharmacist, which are not in purview of Rajasthan Public Service Commission, the merit list is required to be prepared on the basis of marks obtained in qualifying academic examination or professional examination or both, as specified in the Schedule appended to the Rules of 1965 and such bonus marks as may be specified by the State Government having regard to length of experience on similar work under the Government National Rural Health Mission, Medi Care Relief Society, Chief Minister BPL Jeevan Raksha Kosh, AIDS Control Society, Revised National Tuberculosis Control Programme (RNTCP), Jhalawar Hospital and Medical College Society, Integrated Disease Surveillance Project or State Institute for Health and Family Welfare. It is not disputed that the list of candidates two times the advertised vacancies was prepared on the basis of the criteria laid down under Rule 19 of the Rules of 1965. Obviously, after verification of the documents, the final merit list was to be prepared out of the candidates included in the list published as aforesaid. In this view of the matter, taking into consideration the advance stage of the recruitment process, the action of the State Government in continuing with the recruitment in question and not extending the benefit of EWS reservation notified subsequently, is based on justifiable reasons and cannot be faulted with. 20. In this view of the matter, taking into consideration the advance stage of the recruitment process, the action of the State Government in continuing with the recruitment in question and not extending the benefit of EWS reservation notified subsequently, is based on justifiable reasons and cannot be faulted with. 20. In Kamla Godara’s case (supra) relied upon by the counsel for the appellants, the question involved was relating to applicability of the enhanced reservation for Scheduled Castes (“SC”) and Scheduled Tribes (“ST”) and the new reservation provided to the candidates belonging to Other Backward Classes (“OBC”) by the State Government for admission to Medical Colleges on the basis of Pre-Medical Test (PMT) and PreVeterinary Test (PVT). The Government of Rajasthan in a Cabinet Meeting held on 4.5.99 enhanced the quota of SC from 8% to 16% and of ST from 6% to 12%. That apart, a new reservation for OBC was provided as 21% of the seats. Pursuant to the decision of the State Government, the Vice-Chancellor of the University of Rajasthan (“the University”) invoking the power under Section 13 (4) of the Rajasthan University Act, amended Ordinance 272 of the University on 27.5.99. Later on, Ordinance 272 was amended by a regular process. The PMT and PVT were held from 9.6.99 to 12.6.99. Inter-alia the contention was raised that the reservation provided by amending Ordinance 272 cannot be made applicable retrospectively after the examinations were over. A Bench of this Court, dealing with the issue raised, observed: “32. What is undisputed is that the examinations were held in between 9th to 12th June, 1999. The Cabinet meeting was held on 4-5-1999. It took a decision to enhance the quota, By letter dated 5-5-1999 (Ex.P.1/2) the University was informed of the State Government decision for enhancing the reservation. The Ordinance 272 was subsequently amended. The syndicate of the University of Rajasthan, in its meeting held on 30-6-1999, has approved the amendment in Ordinance 272. 33. The competence of the State Government to issue executive instructions under Article 15 of the Constitution to make a provision for reservation has not been questioned. The decision taken by the State Government on 4- 5-1999 is also not challenged. What is challenged is the date of the enforcement of the amendment. 34. The State Government in its meeting held on 4-5-1999 made recommendations for the enhanced reservation. The decision taken by the State Government on 4- 5-1999 is also not challenged. What is challenged is the date of the enforcement of the amendment. 34. The State Government in its meeting held on 4-5-1999 made recommendations for the enhanced reservation. Article 162 of the Constitution recognises that where the State has the power to make laws it can issue executive instructions. Thus, the decision of the State Government taken in the meeting dated 4-5-1999 has the force of law. Once this proposition is saved by the constitutional provisions then what necessarily follows is that a law came into being providing for reservation to the tune of 16% to Scheduled Castes, 12% Scheduled Tribes and 21% to Other Backward Classes on 4-5- 1999 with the State Government’s decisions. This happened before the holding of the examinations. …..xxxxx……… 37. With the Cabinet decision on 4-5-1999 enhancement became effective. The order was passed on 5-5-1999. On this count the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioners fail and it is held that the State Government’s decision taken in the Cabinet Meeting held on 4-5-1999 will govern the examination of 1999 whereby enhanced reservation was available to the classes specified in the order. 38. The case of the petitioners further falls on the ground that by mere filling up of the forms for taking up the examination no vested right can be said to have accrued to the petitioners. If there was no vested right accrued to the petitioners then they cannot ask this Court to exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to interfere in a matter which fails short of creating any right in favour of the petitioners.” 21. It is noticed that in Kamla Godara’s case (supra), the Court arrived at a conclusion that the State Government was competent to issue the executive instructions and the decision of the State Government taken in the Cabinet Meeting dated 4.5.99 has the force of law and consequently, the reservation made was held to be effective on 4.5.99 and accordingly, the Court declined to interfere. 22. In the instant case, the State Government while implementing the reservation provided, vide Circular dated 23.6.19 excluded the recruitment process where the examinations were already concluded or the process for preparation of the merit list was at the verge of completion. 22. In the instant case, the State Government while implementing the reservation provided, vide Circular dated 23.6.19 excluded the recruitment process where the examinations were already concluded or the process for preparation of the merit list was at the verge of completion. It is not the case of the appellants that the policy decision of the Government in implementing the reservation provided, was actuated by malafide and thus, the decision taken which is not otherwise unreasonable or irrational, cannot be interfered with by this Court in exercise of its extra-ordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India . 23. In view of the discussion above, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the view taken by the learned Single Judge. 24. In the result, the intra court appeals fail, the same are hereby dismissed. No order as to costs.” 2. Accordingly, this special appeal writ is also dismissed in light of the decision rendered in Bhagvat Singh’s case (supra) on the same terms.