Rajasthan High Court

Smt Shakuntala vs State Of Raj And Ors on 1 October, 2021

Bench: Sanjeev Prakash Sharma

       HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
                   BENCH AT JAIPUR

              S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10619/2018

Smt. Shakuntala Daughter Of Late Shri Suraj Mal Wife Of Shri
Manoj Kumar Deedwania, And Resident Of B-214, Chandravardai
Nagar, Ajmer.
                                                                   ----Petitioner
                                   Versus
1.     State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary, Rural
       Development        And      Panchayati          Raj      Department,     G,
       Secretariat, Jaipur Raj..
2.     The Zila Parishad, Ajmer Through Its Chief Executive
       Officer.
3.     The    Director,       Elementary        Education,        Directorate    -
       Rajasthan, Bikaner.
4.     The District Education Officer, Elementary Education,
       Ajmer.
                                                                ----Respondents

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Harshit Mittal For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vaibhav Thakuria for Dr. Ganesh Meena, AAG

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA

Order

01/10/2021

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the issue

involved in the present petition stands finally adjudicated by this

Court in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.15594/2016 (Rashmi

Agarwal vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr.) which has been

affirmed by the Division Bench of this Court in D.B. Special

Appeal Writ No.247/2017 (State of Rajasthan & Anr.

Versus Rashmi Agarwal) the Division Bench has in its operative

portion held as under:-

(2 of 5) [CW-10619/2018]

"The issue at hand is squarely covered by Division Bench decision dated 18.04.2017 in case of Rashmi Agrawal (supra). The operative portion thereof is reproduced hereunder :-

"Having perused the impugned order we find no infirmity therein. The view taken is that eligibility is with reference to the last date of submitting the applications and not the declaration of the result. The respondent was a divorcee on the date when she applied. She got re-married when result were declared. Her entitlement for appointment under the divorcee quota has rightly been upheld.

The writ-appeal is dismissed. The stay application also stands dismissed. No costs"

Vide aforesaid judgment dated 18.04.2017 the Division Bench has affirmed the judgment dated 23.11.2016 rendered in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.15594/2016 (Rashmi Agrwal vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr.). It will not be out of place to reproduce the relevant portion of the judgment dated 23.11.2016 rendered by the Coordinate Bench of this Court :-

"Two questions have arisen for consideration before this Court; (a) Whether a candidate who re-marry will lose status of Divorcee and (b) what is the reckoning date for determination eligibility of the candidate in the category of Divorcee.

It is not doubt that when the petitioner went to join her services, she was married lady, but it is also undeniable that when the petitioner applied and on the last date of submission of application form, the petitioner was Divorcee. Therefore, the status of the petitioner is to be determined on the last date for submission of application form. A subsequent event cannot take away legal character of the petitioner, which existed on the last date for submission of application form. Surely,

(3 of 5) [CW-10619/2018]

policy of the state is not to encourage that a Divorcee should remain Divorcee for ever.

Thus, a hyper-technical objection cannot be raised by the respondents qua the reckoning date for determination of the legal character of the petitioner, whether she was Divorcee or not on the last date fixed for submission of application form. Since, on the last date for submission of application form, the petitioner was a Divorcee, she is entitled to appointment and joining in pursuance thereof.

Consequently, the present petition is allowed. The action of the respondents whereby petitioner has been denied appointment is set aside. The respondents are directed to permit the petitioner to join her place of posting within one month from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order".

Following the aforesaid Single Bench judgment dated 23.11.2016 duly affirmed by Division Bench, vide order dated 18.04.2017, the present writ petition is allowed. Petitioner's rejection on the ground of her re- marriage is quashed and set aside.

Respondents are directed to give appointment to the petitioner in accordance with law and issue order of appointment, if she falls in merit list and is otherwise eligible. The needful be done within a period of eight weeks from today."

Having perused the impugned order, this Court finds no

infirmity in the case of Rashmi Agarwal (supra), the Co-ordinate

Bench held as under:-

"Two questions have arisen for consideration before this Court; (a) Whether a candidate who re- marry will lose status of Divorcee and (b) what is the reckoning date for determination eligibility of the candidate in the category of Divorcee.

It is no doubt that when the petitioner went to join her services, she was married lady, but it is also

(4 of 5) [CW-10619/2018]

undeniable that when the petitioner applied and on the last date of submission of application form, the petitioner was Divorcee. Therefore, the status of the petitioner is to be determined on the last date for submission of application form. A subsequent event cannot take away legal character of the petitioner, which existed on the last date for submission of application form. Surely, policy of the State is not to encourage that a Divorcee should remain Divorcee for ever.

Thus, a hyper-technical objection cannot be raised by the respondents qua the reckoning date for determination of the legal character of the petitioner, whether she was Divorcee or not on the last date fixed for submission of application form.

Since, on the last date for submission of application form, the petitioner was a Divorcee, she is entitled to appointment and joining in pursuance thereof.

Consequently, the present petition is allowed. The action of the respondents whereby petitioner has been denied appointment is set aside. The respondents are directed to permit the petitioner to join her place of posting within one month from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order."

Learned counsel submits that the petitioner too was a

divorcee on the day when she applied under the advertisement

dated 24.02.2012 however, she re-married on 21.04.2015.

Although earlier result was declared under the advertisement

dated 24.02.2012 and the same was revised in 2017 but the

petitioner was denied appointment on the ground that she had by

that time got re-married.

(5 of 5) [CW-10619/2018]

Learned counsel has also pointed out that on 27.06.2017

appointment order was issued but the petitioner was denied vide

order dated 30.04.2018 to join.

Learned counsel for the respondent does not deny the law