Parul Khurana vs High Court Of Judicature For ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 1228 Raj

     HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
                      JODHPUR
               D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1004/2022

Parul Khurana D/o Shri Suresh Khurana, Aged About 26 Years,
33-A, Prem Nagar, Near Payal Cinema, District Sri Ganganagar.
                                                                   ----Petitioner
                                    Versus
1.     High Court Of Judicature For Rajasthan At Jodhpur,
       Through Its Registrar General.
2.     The    Registrar       (Examination),        Rajasthan      High   Court,
       Jodhpur.
                                                                ----Respondents


For Petitioner(s)         :     Mr. Rakesh Arora through VC.
For Respondent(s)         :     -



           HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MEHTA
      HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR BHARWANI

                              JUDGMENT

Judgment pronounced on                 :::            27/01/2022
Judgment reserved on                   :::            19/01/2022



BY THE COURT : (PER HON'BLE MEHTA, J.)

1. The respondents issued a recruitment notification dated

18.01.2020 inviting applications for recruitment to the post of

Stenographer Grade-III (Hindi and English) in the Districts Courts

and the District Legal Services Authorities. Reservations were

provided for Divorcee category women in this recruitment process.

The last date of submission of online application forms was

28.02.2020.

2. The petitioner claims that she was married to one Shri

Vikash on 06.07.2018. However, the matrimonial relationship fell

(2 of 5) [CW-1004/2022]

out and thus, a customary divorce took place in the Society

Panchayat on 17.09.2018 and an agreement was executed on the

very same day for terminating the relations between the spouses.

An application under Section 13B of the Hindu Marriage Act was

filed on 12.07.2019 but could not be posted for second motion

because of some dispute. The decree of divorce was passed on

13.08.2020. The delay occurred on account of COVID pandemic

and the lockdown imposed pursuant thereto. As the application

under Section 13B of the Hindu Marriage Act had already been

filed long before submitting the application form in the recruitment

process, the petitioner applied in the category of Divorcee Female.

The result of the recruitment in question was declared on

30.06.2021. The petitioner was called for interview and document

verification and was declared successful in the category of

Divorcee Female. However, the previous result was cancelled and

fresh result was declared because of some litigation, etc. The

petitioner was again declared successful in the Divorcee Female

category in the revised result and was called for interview and

document verification vide Notice dated 07.12.2021. The final

result was declared on 15.12.2021 wherein, a note was appended

that the petitioner did not have the decree of divorce on the last

date of submission of online application form i.e. 28.02.2020 and

thus, she was not being considering in Divorcee Female category.

Thereupon, The petitioner has approached this Court by way of

this writ petition for assailing the notice dated 15.12.2021

whereby, the candidature of the petitioner has been rejected on

the ground that she did not possess the decree of divorce on the

last date of submission of online application form.

                                              (3 of 5)                      [CW-1004/2022]



3.     Shri   Rakesh      Arora,       learned       counsel        representing     the

petitioner, vehemently and fervently urged that the respondents

were totally unjustified in turning down the petitioner's

candidature in the Divorcee Female category because she was

already having a customary divorce agreement. As the application

for divorce by mutual consent under Section 13B of the Hindu

Marriage Act had also been filed well before issuance of the

recruitment notification but could not be decided because of the

prevailing COVID pandemic and hence, the petitioner ought to

have been given appointment in the Divorcee Female category as

per her merit. He submitted that there was no requirement in the

recruitment notification that for applying in the Divorcee category,

the aspirant must be holding the divorce decree. As the

application had been preferred under Section 13B of the Hindu

Marriage Act, grant of decree of divorce was a foregone

consequence thereof. As a matter of fact, the divorce decree was

granted on 13.08.2020 i.e. well before declaration of the result

and thus, the impugned notice should be struck down and the

respondents be directed to offer appointment to the petitioner as

per her merit and performance against the seats reserved for

Divorcee Female category.

4. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the

submissions advanced by the petitioner's counsel and, have gone

through the material placed on record.

5. The recruitment notification in question, in no uncertain

terms, stipulated that the reservation was being offered to

"Divorcee Female" category. For a person, applying in the said

(4 of 5) [CW-1004/2022]

category, the status of being divorced was imperative. There is

nothing in law which can permit a candidate to apply in the said

category in the expectancy that a decree would be granted.

6. Be that as it may. Since the petitioner was not a 'Divorced

Female' as on the last date of submission of application forms, she

was not entitled to apply in the said category and as a

consequence, the respondents were absolutely justified in

rejecting the petitioner's candidature in the category of Divorcee

Female. Law in this regard is well settled by Hon'ble the Supreme

Court in the case of Ashok Kumar Sonkar vs. Union of India,

reported in (2007)3 SCC 956 wherein, the Hon'ble Court was

considering the aspect of the candidate not holding the requisite

academic qualification by the last date of submission of the

application forms. It was held that if the Rules and the recruitment

notification are silent, the last date for considering the

qualification would be the last date of submission of the

application forms. In the present scenario, admittedly, the

petitioner was not a Divorcee on the last date of submission of the

application forms and thus, she was not entitled to apply in such

category. As a matter of fact, she made a mis-statement of being

divorced while applying against the seats reserved for Divorcee

Female aspirants. Hence, the respondents were absolutely

justified in rejecting the petitioner's candidature by the impugned

notice dated 15.12.2021 which is perfectly in accordance with law.

7. In support of his contentions, Shri Rakesh Arora has placed

reliance on the Single Bench Judgment in the case of Reetu

Kalasua Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. reported in 2014 (3)

(5 of 5) [CW-1004/2022]

WLC (Raj.) 137. It may be mentioned here that the Judgment of

Reetu Kalasua (supra), which in turn was rendered on the ratio of

a Division Bench Judgment in the case of State of Rajasthan &

Ors. vs. Ms. Jamna Rajpurohit reported in 2013(4) CDR 2275

(Raj.) were both considered by a Division Bench in the case of

State of Rajasthan vs. Jagdish Prasad (D.B. Civil Special

Apeal (Writ) No.611/2016) decided on 09.09.2016 and the

Hon'ble Division Bench has declared the Judgment rendered in the

case of Ms. Jamna Rajpurohit (supra) to be per incuriam.

Manifestly thus, the judgment in the case of Reetu Kalasua

(supra) relied upon by Shri Arora does not lay down the correct

preposition of law and hence is of no help whatsoever to the

petitioner.

8. As a consequence, the writ petition fails and is hereby

dismissed as being devoid of merit.

                                   (VINOD KUMAR BHARWANI),J                                  (SANDEEP MEHTA),J



                                    30-Tikam Daiya/-









Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)