HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
D. B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No. 1667/2019
In
S. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11801/2017
The Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Ajmer, Rajasthan,
through its Secretary.
----Appellant/Respondent
Versus
1. Chandresh Meena D/o Shri Prahlad Meena, aged about 28 Years, resident of 7-C-7, Vigyan Nagar Vistar Yojna, Kota Rajasthan.
Respondent/Petitioner
2. The State of Rajasthan, through Secretary, Department of Education, Government of Rajasthan, Secretariat Jaipur.
3. The Director, Secondary Education, Rajasthan, Bikaner.
----Proforma Respondents For Appellant : Mr. Mirza Faisal Baig Advocate. For Respondent No. 1 : Mr. Tanveer Ahamad Advocate through For Respondents No. Video Conferencing. 2 and 3 : Mr. Ganesh Meena Additional Advocate General.
HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA KUMAR SONGARA Judgment 12/08/2021 Appellant has filed the appeal challenging order dated 01.09.2017 passed by the learned Single Judge, whereby, interim order was passed in favour of Respondent No. 1 and order (Downloaded on 16/08/2021 at 09:27:51 PM) (2 of 4) [SAW-1667/2019] 26.09.2019 passed by the learned Single Judge, whereby, application filed by the appellant under Article 226(3) of Constitution of India was dismissed.
Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that by granting interim relief, learned Single Judge has virtually allowed the writ petition. Learned counsel has submitted that final relief sought by Respondent No. 1 could not have been granted by way of interim relief. In support of his arguments, learned counsel has placed reliance on the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of U.P. & Others Vs. Ram Sukhi Devi, AIR 2005 Supreme Court 284 and State of U.P. & Others. Vs. Sandeep Kumar Balmiki & Others, [Civil Appeal No. 6517 of 2009 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 13319 of 2009 decided on 18.09.2009].
Learned counsel for Respondent No. 1 has opposed the appeal and has submitted that Respondent No. 1 had got decree of divorce by way of an agreement in terms of custom prevailing in the Scheduled Caste community on 05.03.2014 and thereafter, she had got a decree of divorce from the competent Court on 04.07.2017. Hence, the learned Single Judge had rightly granted interim relief in favour of Respondent No. 1.
Respondent No. 1 has filed the writ petition claiming following relief:
"It is therefore humbly prayed that Your Honor may kindly be pleased to accept and allow the writ petition of the humble petitioner and, I. By way of an appropriate writ or direction it may kindly be declared that the action/omission on the part of the respondents in requiring the decree of divorce from the petitioner despite of a candidate of scheduled tribes category, is arbitrary and contrary to the provisions of the Hindu Marriage Act. 1955.(Downloaded on 16/08/2021 at 09:27:51 PM)
(3 of 4) [SAW-1667/2019] II. Inaction/omission on the part of the respondents in not considering the candidature of the petitioner under scheduled tribes Divorcee category and rejecting the candidature for the post of School Lecturer (Subject Political Science) in pursuant to the advertisement (Annexure-1) one may kindly be declared arbitrary and illegal and accordingly be ordered to be set right by directing the respondents to issue appointment order in favour of the petitioner in the interest of Justice with all consequential benefits with effect from the date the candidates with the marks less than the petitioner in her category are given appointment.
III. Any other order or direction which this Hon'ble court deem just and proper may also be passed in favour of the petitioner. Cost of the writ petition may also be awarded in favour of the petitioner."
Respondent No. 1 had applied for the post of Lecturer in pursuance to Advertisement dated 16.10.2015. Last date for filling up the application forms was 20.12.2015. Respondent No. 1 had submitted her application form on 20.11.2015, in divorcee category.
The controversy involved in the present case is as to whether the agreement dated 05.03.2014 can be taken in consideration while considering Respondent No. 1 as an applicant in divorcee category or she was required to have a decree of divorcee from the competent Court.
It is the case of Respondent No. 1 that Family Court has granted decree of divorce in favour of Respondent No. 1 on 04.07.2017, i.e., much after the date when Respondent No. 1 had filled in her application form or the last date for filling in the application form in pursuance to Advertisement dated 16.10.2015. However, the said decree is not available on record.
Learned Single Judge, while granting interim relief to Respondent No. 1, has virtually granted the final relief. Since, the (Downloaded on 16/08/2021 at 09:27:51 PM) (4 of 4) [SAW-1667/2019] learned Single Judge vide impugned orders has granted final relief at the interim stage, the impugned orders are liable to be set aside.
Accordingly, appeal is allowed. Impugned orders dated 01.09.2017 and 26.09.2019 are set aside. Consequently, the application for interim relief stands dismissed. (CHANDRA KUMAR SONGARA),J (SABINA),J MANOJ NARWANI /27 (Downloaded on 16/08/2021 at 09:27:51 PM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)