Rajasthan High Court
The Rajasthan Public Service ... vs Chandresh Meena D/O Shri Prahlad ... on 12 August, 2021
Bench: Sabina, Chandra Kumar Songara
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
(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.
(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
(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
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
