Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Kiran Bairwa vs State Of Rajasthan on 5 August, 2021
Bench: Dinesh Mehta
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8257/2021
Kiran Bairwa D/o Shri Om Prakash Bairwa, Aged About 33 Years,
R/o Railway Quarter, Railway Station, Degana Junction, Tehsil
Degana, District Nagaur Permanent R/o Budh Vihar, Naya Bas,
Bandikul, Dist. Dausa.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Principal Secretary,
Department Of Medical And Health Department, Govt. Of
Raj., Jaipur.
2. The Special Secretary, Department Of Medical And Health
Department And Mission Director, Nhm, Govt. Of Raj.,
Swasthya Bhawan, Tilak Marg, Jaipur (Raj.).
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Surendra Singh Choudhary
For Respondent(s) : Ms. Vandana Bhansali
JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA
Judgment
05/08/2021
(1) By way of the present writ petition, the petitioner has
challenged rejection of her candidature, which the respondents
have done vide order dated 5.2.2021 (Annex.9) indicating thus:
"Applicant current status is married now"
(2) Mr. Surendra Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner
submits that the petitioner had earlier submitted her application
form on 31.5.2019 pursuant to advertisement dated 16.5.2019;
said recruitment was however, not proceeded with as the number
of posts were increased.
(2 of 3) [CW-8257/2021]
(3) The respondent No.2 issued fresh advertisement dated
31.8.2020 and required all the candidates to fill fresh application
forms.
(4) The petitioner having submitted form earlier again filled in
fresh application form on 22.9.2020, claiming her candidature as
divorcee.
(5) The petitioner has preferred instant writ petition with the
case that the petitioner's candidature could not have been
rejected, simply because she got married later on.
(6) Considering petitioner's submissions, on 15.7.2021 this
Court had directed the petitioner to file an additional affidavit
alongwith the marriage certificate showing the date of her
marriage.
(7) An additional affidavit has now been filed by the petitioner
indicating therein that the petitioner was married on 22.6.2020.
(8) Ms. Vandana Bhansali, learned counsel for the respondents
at the outset pointed out that at the time of submitting first
application form petitioner's status was that of divorcee, however,
when the subsequent application form was submitted (i.e. on
22.9.2020), the petitioner already got married and thus, she
cannot be treated to be a divorcee.
(9) Having perused the material available on record and
considered the submissions made by Ms. Bhansali, this Court is of
the considered opinion that the respondents have not erred in
rejecting petitioner's candidature. The reasons are not far to
seek.
(10) On 22.9.2020 the petitioner having married on 22.6.2020
could not have submitted an application form claiming herself to
be divorcee.
(3 of 3) [CW-8257/2021]
(11) This Court is not much convinced with the argument raised
by Mr. Surendra Singh that the subsequent advertisement calling
for fresh applications was nothing but a continuation of the earlier
process of recruitment inasmuch as the fee was ordered to be
adjusted, so also, age relaxation was given by the respondents.
(12) On account of increase in the number of seats, once the
recruitment earlier advertized was cancelled and a fresh
advertisement was issued on 31.8.2020, petitioner's eligibility has
to be seen on the date of submission of the application form (i.e.
on 22.9.2020). At the time of submitting application, the
petitioner was definitely a married woman. She, could definitely
not have claimed her candidature as divorcee.
(13) Finding no merit and force in the present writ petition, the
same is hereby dismissed.
(14) The stay application also stands disposed of accordingly.
(DINESH MEHTA),J
61-CPGoyal/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
