ORDER : 1. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the action of the respondents in not considering her candidature for appointment under the unreserved (widow) category for recruitment to the post of LDC. 2. The facts disclosed that the respondents issued an advertisement for the selection of LDCs vide advertisement dated 12.2.2013. The last date for submitting applications was 22.3.2013. The petitioner applied for the said post on 13.4.2013 under the category of Unreserved Female (General Female). The advertisement provided various reservations, including reservation for widows, and certain posts were earmarked for the Unreserved (Widow) category. The petitioner applied only under the Unreserved (Female) category and did not apply under the Unreserved (Widow) category as she was not entitled to do so. At the time of submitting the application, the petitioner’s husband was alive. Accordingly, the petitioner participated in the selection process for the General/Unreserved (Female) category only and not under the Unreserved (Widow) reservation. 3. During the selection process, the petitioner’s husband passed away on 19.12.2022. In the original selection list, she was not found meritorious either under the Unreserved/General (Female) category or the Unreserved/General (Widow) category. By communication dated 17.11.2022, the respondents decided to fill the unfilled vacancies in the selection process undertaken pursuant to the advertisement dated 12.02.2013. A candidate having 32.846 marks (as shown in Annexure-6) was selected under the Unreserved/General Widow category, whereas the petitioner had secured 52.739 marks. As she had higher marks than the selected candidate under the Unreserved (Widow) category, the petitioner submitted a representation dated 12.01.2023 requesting the respondents to change her category of consideration from Unreserved (Female) to Unreserved/General (Widow). When such a representation was not considered, the present writ petition has been filed. 4. The case of the respondents is that the petitioner had applied under the General/Unreserved (Female) category and was not entitled to avail reservation under the Unreserved (Widow) category as she was not meeting the eligibility criteria on the last date for submitting applications in 2013. Only upon the death of her husband on 19.12.2022, she gained the right to avail reservation under the Unreserved (Widow) category. This right to claim reservation arose subsequent to the last date for submitting applications. The petitioner cannot change her category during the selection process, particularly when she was not eligible to avail such reservation on the last date of submitting the application. This right to claim reservation arose subsequent to the last date for submitting applications. The petitioner cannot change her category during the selection process, particularly when she was not eligible to avail such reservation on the last date of submitting the application. Thus, the respondent prayed to dismiss the writ petition. 5. Heard the learned counsel for the for the parties. 6. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that though the petitioner had applied under the General/ Unreserved (Female) category, as she did not meet the criteria for availing reservation under the Unreserved (Widow) category because her husband was alive on the last date of the notification, such a beneficial policy ought to be extended to persons who become widows during the selection process due to unforeseen circumstances. Therefore, her category ought to have been changed for consideration under the Unreserved (Widow) category. In support of his case, the learned counsel has relied upon the decision of Division Bench of this Court in the case of State of Rajasthan & Ors. Vs. Ms. Jamna Rajpurohit (D.B. Civil Special Appeal No. 82/2013), decided on 30.08.2013, whereunder the Division Bench of this Hon’ble Court has directed the State to apply the Special Reservation though such a right to claim reservation arose during the selection process. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that a contrary view was taken in State of Rajasthan & Anr. v. Jagdish Prasad & Anr. , 2016 SCC OnLine Raj 9806 He has relied upon the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in Sangeeta Joshi v. Rajasthan High Court & Ors ., 2024 SCC OnLine Raj 507, to contend that similar questions have been referred to a Larger Bench, and therefore, until the Larger Bench decides the matter, the writ petition should not be disposed of. 8. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondents submits that the petitioner applied under the General/Unreserved (Female) category and had no right to avail reservation under the Unreserved (Widow) category as on the last date for submitting applications. Her candidature was required to be considered only under the General/Unreserved (Female) category. She was not entitled to consideration under the Unreserved (Widow) category, as she did not meet the eligibility criteria on the last date of application. Her candidature was required to be considered only under the General/Unreserved (Female) category. She was not entitled to consideration under the Unreserved (Widow) category, as she did not meet the eligibility criteria on the last date of application. The petitioner became eligible during the selection process, after a lapse of nine years, only upon the death of her husband on 19.12.2022. It is further submitted that the controversy regarding change of category shifting eligibility criteria during the selection process upon subsequent acquisition of eligibility for various reserved categories has been considered by the Apex Court in several cases and rejected. Thus, the writ petition deserves to be dismissed. 9. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents also submitted that the view expressed by the learned Judges of the Division Bench, while making a reference to a larger Bench, did not consider the binding precedents of the Apex Court holding that eligibility criteria must be determined with reference to the date specified in the Rules or the date mentioned in the advertisement. In the absence of such specifications, the last date for submitting the application becomes the cut-off date for determining eligibility. The petitioner has failed to bring on record any Rules permitting the grant of such reservation, nor is there any date prescribed in the advertisement that would allow a candidate to claim eligibility acquired after the cut-off date. Therefore, the relevant eligibility criteria must be assessed with reference to the last date for submitting the application. In the present case, the petitioner did not meet the eligibility criteria for availing the reservation as on that date. Accordingly, a reference to a larger Bench of this Court, in light of the various judgments of the Apex Court, is unwarranted and such decision is per incuriam. 10. In the context of the above contentions, it is relevant to refer to certain undisputed facts from the pleadings and contentions of both the parties. The advertisement to fill up the LDC post was issued on 12.02.2013. The petitioner made an application on 13.04.2023 opting the category of general/unreserved (female). The advertisement prescribes various kinds of reservation and posts are also earmarked in the advertisement. For the purpose of present dispute, the advertisement prescribes reservation for unreserved (widow) category. The advertisement to fill up the LDC post was issued on 12.02.2013. The petitioner made an application on 13.04.2023 opting the category of general/unreserved (female). The advertisement prescribes various kinds of reservation and posts are also earmarked in the advertisement. For the purpose of present dispute, the advertisement prescribes reservation for unreserved (widow) category. On the last dater of application, the petitioner is not meeting the eligibility criteria for selection to the post of unreserved (widow) category as her husband was alive at that time. The husband of the petitioner died on 19.12.2022. This means that the petitioner did not meet the eligibility criteria for availing reservation under unreserved (widow) category and acquired eligibility after 9 years from the date of advertisement. The selection process culminated into final list and appointment orders were also issued. By communication dated 17.11.2022, the respondents decided to fill up unfilled vacancies in the recruitment process of 12.02.2013. The petitioner got 52.739 marks. The candidate having 32.846 (as contained in Annexure-6) has been selected under the category of unreserved/ general widow. This means that the petitioner’s marks are more than the selected candidate in unreserved (widow) category, if she is permitted to change the category, she would find her name in the merit list of Unreserved (Widow) category. 11. The question before this Court is whether a person who acquires eligibility for a reservation due to an event occurring after the cut-off date or during the selection process is entitled to avail such reservation, even though she was initially ineligible for consideration under the reserved category. 12. The controversy with regard to relevant date for determination of eligibility criteria is no more res integra and they are the settled principles from various precedents of the Apex Court. It is suffice to refer to recent judgment of Apex Court in the case of Soumen Paul & Ors. Vs. Shrabani Nayek & Ors., 2025 SCC OnLine SC 720, the relevant paragraph reads as follows:- “24. The law on the subject was also considered by the recent Constitution Bench decision of this Court in the case of Tej Prakash Pathak v. Rajasthan High 21 Court. Delivering the judgment of the Court, Justice Manoj Misra (one of us) succinctly explained the legal position as follows: 14. In various judicial pronouncements, the law governing recruitment to public services has been colloquially termed as "the rules of the game". Delivering the judgment of the Court, Justice Manoj Misra (one of us) succinctly explained the legal position as follows: 14. In various judicial pronouncements, the law governing recruitment to public services has been colloquially termed as "the rules of the game". The "game" is the process of selection and appointment. Courts have consistently frowned upon tinkering with the rules of the game once the recruitment process commences. This has crystallised into an oft-quoted legal phrase that "the rules of the game must not be changed midway, or after the game has been played". Broadly speaking these rules fall in two categories. One which prescribes the eligibility criteria (i.e. essential qualifications) of the candidates seeking employment; and the other which stipulates the method and manner of making the selection from amongst the eligible candidates. 15. Cut-off date with reference to which eligibility has to be determined is the date appointed by the relevant service rules; where no such cut-off date is provided in the rules, then it will be the date appointed in the advertisement inviting applications; and if there is no such date appointed, then eligibility criteria shall be applied by reference to the last date appointed by which the 22 applications were to be received. 25. Re: Application of the interpretation and these precedents to the facts of the present case. We have already held that Rule 6(2) of the Recruitment Rules, 2016 does not prescribe a date by which minimum qualifications must be possessed. We have also upheld the stand of the Board in this regard. It is in this context that we must now consider the legality and validity of the recruitment notification dated 21.10.2022. The need for a close scrutiny of the recruitment notification is also to ensure that it is in consonance with the law laid down by this Court. 26. Even as per the decisions of this Court in Bhupinderpal Singh (supra), the candidate seeking public employment must satisfy his eligibility requirements in terms of the date appointed by the relevant service rules and, "if there is no cut-off date appointed by the rules then such date as may be appointed for the purpose of advertisement calling for applications". Further, if there is no such date appointed then eligibility criteria shall be with reference to the last date appointed by which the applications have to be received. Further, if there is no such date appointed then eligibility criteria shall be with reference to the last date appointed by which the applications have to be received. 13.1 The principles enunciated from the above precedents are clear. Firstly, the eligibility criteria must be determined with reference to the cut-off date fixed under the Rules. Secondly, in the absence of a cut-off date under the Rules, the date specified in the advertisement is to be considered. Thirdly, if no cut-off date is mentioned either in the Rules or the advertisement, the last date appointed for receiving applications serves as the relevant cut off date. 13.2 The petitioner has failed to bring on record any provision in the Rules indicating a cut-off date to test eligibility for availing reservation under the Unreserved (Widow) category. She has also failed to point out any cut-off date specified in the advertisement. Therefore, the relevant cut-off date must be the last date appointed for receiving applications. Admittedly, in the present case, the petitioner does not meet the eligibility criteria for consideration under the Unreserved (Widow) category on such date, as she acquired eligibility only on 19.12.2022, due to the death of her husband, nine years after the commencement of the recruitment process. 14. The Apex Court in the case of Gurdeep Singh Vs. State of J&K , 1995 Supp (1) SCC 188, in a similar set of facts, had occasion to consider a candidate’s entitlement to be considered for a reservation. In that case, the facts revealed that the sport for which the candidate held a certificate was not included in the Schedule of recognized sports. However, during the course of the selection process, an amendment was made, including the said sport in the Schedule. Consequently, the candidate acquired eligibility to avail of the reservation under the Sports Category. In the said context the Apex Court held as follows:- “7….The real question was rather that such a sport not having been included in the list of approved sports at the cut-off date when the applications were invited and on the basis of which candidates responded, could not later be introduced to provide eligibility retrospectively to a single candidate…..” 15. It is also relevant to refer to the decision of Apex Court in the case of J&K Public Service Commission Vs. Israr Ahmad & Ors. MANU/SC/2713/2005, wherein it has been held as follows:- 7. It is also relevant to refer to the decision of Apex Court in the case of J&K Public Service Commission Vs. Israr Ahmad & Ors. MANU/SC/2713/2005, wherein it has been held as follows:- 7. We have considered the rival contentions advanced by both the parties. The contention of the first Respondent cannot be accepted as he has not applied for the selection as a candidate entitled to get reservation. He did not produce any certificate along with his application. The fact that he has not availed the benefit for the preliminary examination itself is sufficient to treat him as a candidate not entitled to get reservation. He passed the preliminary examination as a general candidate and at the subsequent stage of the main examination he cannot avail the reservation on the ground that he was successful in getting the required certificate only at a later stage. The nature and status of the candidate who was applying for the selection could only be treated alike and once a candidate has chosen to opt for the category to which he is entitled, he cannot later change the status and make fresh claim. The Division Bench was not correct in holding that as a candidate he had also had the qualification and the production of the certificate at a later stage would make him entitled to seek reservation. Therefore, we set aside the judgment of the Division Bench and allow the appeal. No costs.” 15.1 A reading of the above decision, it is clear that a person who applied for the general category is not entitled to change the category upon acquisition of a certification of reservation in the middle of the selection process. The relevant date was date appointed under the advertisement or the rules, if not the last date for making an application. 16. In the case of Jagdish Prasad (supra), the Division Bench had occasion to consider the case of Ms. Jamna Rajpurohit (supra), wherein persons acquired eligibility for consideration of a post reserved for Unreserved (Widows) during the course of the selection process was allowed to avail reservation. However, this decision was held to be per incuriam in light of the decisions of the Apex Court in (i) Gurdeep Singh (supra), (ii) Rakesh Kumar Sharma vs. State (NCT of Delhi), (2013) 11 SCC 58 and (iii) U.P. Public Service Commission, U.P. vs. Alpana , (1994) 2 SCC 723 . However, this decision was held to be per incuriam in light of the decisions of the Apex Court in (i) Gurdeep Singh (supra), (ii) Rakesh Kumar Sharma vs. State (NCT of Delhi), (2013) 11 SCC 58 and (iii) U.P. Public Service Commission, U.P. vs. Alpana , (1994) 2 SCC 723 . 17. The decision of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Sangeeta Joshi (supra), while referring the matter, did not have occasion to consider the settled principles governing the relevant date for determining eligibility. When the law is well settled by the Apex Court in various binding precedents, as referred herein- above, I am of the view that those precedents are operating in the field. The larger Bench cannot go against those principles even if it is required to decide. I respectfully disagree with the view taken by learned Judges in the case of Sangeeta Joshi in the light of the binding principles of Apex Court referred herein-above and I hold that such reference is per incuriam. 18. The real issue in the present writ petition is not the shifting of the category during the pendency of the selection process. The true issue is the shifting of the cut-off date for meeting the eligibility criteria from the cut off date mentioned in the notification to some other date during the selection process. In the case of shifting the category, the individual fulfills eligibility criteria but could comply requirement to claim such eligibility at the time of cut-off date specified in the advertisement. 19. To claim reservation under the unreserved (widow) category, the applicant must be a married woman and her husband had died as on the relevant date. Only if these two conditions are satisfied then only she would be eligible to claim the reservation. In this case, the petitioner is a married woman and her husband was alive at the time of submitting the application. Therefore, she did not meet the eligibility criteria for claiming the reservation. She only acquired eligibility upon the death of her husband during the pendency of the selection process. Allowing the petitioner to claim the reservation under the unreserved (widow) category would effectively mean shifting the eligibility criteria from the cut-off date specified in the Notification to a later date, i.e., the date on which she became eligible during the selection process which cannot be allowed. 20. Allowing the petitioner to claim the reservation under the unreserved (widow) category would effectively mean shifting the eligibility criteria from the cut-off date specified in the Notification to a later date, i.e., the date on which she became eligible during the selection process which cannot be allowed. 20. The petitioner did not fulfill the eligibility criteria to avail the reservation under the Unreserved (Widow) category as on the last date for submission of the application. Furthermore, she cannot be permitted to change her category based on the acquisition of eligibility during the pendency of the selection process, as consistently held by various decisions of the Apex Court. Therefore, the writ petition is devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed. 21. In the result, the writ petition is dismissed. 22. In the circumstances, no order as to costs. 23. Pending interlocutory applications, if any, shall stand disposed of.