Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Vinod Yogi vs State Of Rajasthan And Ors on 27 June, 2022
Bench: Rekha Borana
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8355/2018
Vinod Yogi D/ Nop Nath W/o Bharat Yogi, R/o Village Harasar,
Tehsil Sujangarh, District Churu Raj.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State of Rajasthan through the Secretary, Department of
Rural Development and Panchayati Raj, Govt. of
Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. The Director, Elementary Education, Raj. Bikaner.
3. Zila Parishad, Churu through its Chief Executive Officer-
cum-Additional Controller of Examination.
4. The District Collector-cum-Controller of Examination,
Churu.
5. The District Education Officer (DEO), Elementary
Education, District Churu.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rajesh Choudhary
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Pankaj Sharma, AAG through VC
assisted by Mr. Deepak Chandak
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REKHA BORANA
Order
27/06/2022
Brief facts of the matter are as under : -
The present petitioner applied for the Teacher Grade III
Direct Recruitment Competition Examination, 2013 (Level I
General Teacher). While applying online, she applied in the
category of divorcee. After declaration of the result, the petitioner
stood in merit and therefore was called for the document
verification vide order dated 02.06.2018. On the date of document
verification she was not in possession of any divorce decree as
was required in terms of Sub-Clause (ix) and (x) of Clause 11.2 of
the advertisement and therefore, she was not afforded
(2 of 4) [CW-8355/2018]
appointment. Aggrieved against the same, the present writ
petition has been filed.
A perusal of the record shows that an application under
Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred
to as "Act of 1955") was moved on behalf of the petitioner and her
husband on 04.06.2018, that is, after the date of the issuance of
the order for document verification.
Counsel for the petitioner submitted that vide customary
rituals, "chhutpalla" had already taken place between the parties
on 23.10.2015 and therefore the petitioner had effectively been
judicially separated since that date. Counsel further submitted
that keeping in view the said document dated 28.10.2015 only,
the decree for divorce on the basis of mutual consent had been
granted by the competent Court on 08.08.2018. Therefore, the
earlier customary document ought to have been considered, the
same being a valid document establishing her to be a divorcee. He
further submitted that even vide interim order dated 19.06.2018,
the petitioner's candidature was directed to be considered
provisionally in the category of OBC (divorcee) and now, as the
seats still remain vacant, she should be afforded appointment.
Per contra, counsel for the respondents submitted that as
per the specific terms of Sub-Clause (ix) and (x) of Clause 11.2 of
the advertisement, the petitioner ought to have had a decree of
divorce on the date of filling of the application form which in the
present case is admittedly not there. He further submitted that
even the application under Section 13-B of the Act of 1955 had
been filed on 04.06.2018 and therefore, the decree granted in
pursuance to the same can even otherwise not fulfill the criteria as
laid down in the advertisement.
(3 of 4) [CW-8355/2018]
Counsel relied upon the Division Bench judgment passed in
D.B.C.W.P. No.1004/2004 (Parul Khurana Vs. High Court of
Judicature for Rajasthan & Anr., decided on 27.01.2022).
Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the
record.
A bare perusal of the reply as filed by the petitioner to the
application under Section 13 of the Act of 1955 filed by her
husband clarifies that she has specifically denied the execution of
the so called "chhutpalla" in the said reply.
In the said reply, she had specifically averred that some
blank papers were got signed by her by fraud and therefore, no
such document of separation was valid.
Therefore, it is clear on record that the petitioner had been
taking shifting stands and the same cannot be said to be
permissible in terms of law. The petitioner cannot, deny the
execution of a particular document before one forum and rely on
the same before another forum.
Further it is clear on record that on the date of filing of the
application form, that is, 30.04.2018, the petitioner did not
possess a decree for divorce and therefore, she could not have
applied under the category of divorcee. As laid down in Parul
Khurana's case (supra),
"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."
The Court further held as under : -
"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
(4 of 4) [CW-8355/2018]
candidature by the impugned notice dated
15.12.2021 which is perfectly in accordance with
law."
In view of the ratio as laid down in Parul Khurana's case
(supra) and in view of the peculiar facts of the present case, this
Court is not inclined to interfere and therefore, the writ petition is
dismissed.
All the pending applications also stand disposed of.
(REKHA BORANA),J
32-AnilKC/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
