Rajasthan High Court
Aneshi Kumari Choudhary D/O ... vs The State Of Rajasthan on 12 November, 2021
Bench: Akil Kureshi, Rekha Borana
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 57/2021
Aneshi Kumari Choudhary D/o Kishan Lal Choudhary, Aged About
28 Years, R/o Rupchadi Khurd, Chaksu, District Jaipur,
Rajasthan.
----Appellant
Versus
1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Secretary,
Department Of Home, Government Secretariat, Jaipur,
Rajasthan.
2. The Director General Of Prison, Directorate Of Rajasthan
Prisons, Ghat Gate, Agra Road, Jaipur, Rajasthan.
3. The Deputy Inspector General Of Prison, Directorate Of
Rajasthan Prisons, Ghat Gate, Agra Road, Jaipur,
Rajasthan.
----Respondents
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Mahendra Kumar Nahar
For Respondent(s) :
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. AKIL KURESHI
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REKHA BORANA
Order
12/11/2021
This appeal is filed by the original petitioner to challenge the
judgment of learned Single Judge dated 08.12.2020 rejecting her
petition.
Brief facts are that the petitioner had applied for selection to
the post of Jail Prahari for which the recruitment advertisement
was issued by the State Government on 29.10.2015. At the time
of application, the petitioner was a married woman. Much later on
30.06.2017, she filed petition for divorce. The decree of divorce
was granted by the Competent Court on 18.08.2018. The final
(2 of 3) [SAW-57/2021]
result was declared on 07.08.2018. On 18.10.2018, her
candidature was cancelled and other eligible and suitable
candidates were included. Eventually, the appointment orders
were issued on 13.02.2019.
The petitioner approached the learned Single Judge
complaining about not being offered appointment in the reserved
category of divorcee woman. The learned Single Judge dismissed
the writ petition on the ground that though the status of a woman
can be changed during the pendency of the selection process as a
divorcee, in the case on hand, the selection process was
completed and the final result was also declared on 07.08.2018
which was before the petitioner was granted decree of divorce.
Learned counsel for the appellant-original petitioner
vehemently contended that the learned Judge has committed an
error in rejecting the petition when the petitioner had already
been divorced at the stage when the selection was not yet
completed.
Learned counsel for the petitioner was unable to show the
clause in the Service Rules or in the advertisement which would
permit a candidate to change the category midway through the
selection process. Ordinarily, the qualification of the candidate is
to be ascertained as on the date provided in the recruitment rules
failing which as mentioned in the advertisement failing which last
date for receiving the application as provided in the
advertisement. In the present case, we proceed on the basis that
considering the special requirements, the status of a woman can
also be permitted to be changed during the ongoing selection
process. However this turn during the selection process, must
have its interpretation based on the special circumstances. It may
(3 of 3) [SAW-57/2021]
be that under ordinary service parlance, the selection process can
be seemed to be continued till the final orders of appointment are
issued and only thereupon it can be said that the selection process
is completed. However when a candidate is allowed to change the
category during the ongoing selection process, the selection
process must be seemed to be completed when final results are
issued on the basis of select list so prepared. Any other view
would bring about uncertainty and fluidity in the selection process.
For example, once the results are declared and select list is
prepared, if the candidate is allowed to change the category, a
person in the select list may have to be removed from the list.
This cannot be the intention of the Rule Making Authority.
In the result, the appeal is dismissed.
(REKHA BORANA),J (AKIL KURESHI),CJ
N.Gandhi/HARSHIT PAREEK/S-80
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
