Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Mamta Baliyan vs State Of Rajasthan on 12 May, 2022
Bench: Arun Bhansali
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4787/2022
Mamta Baliyan D/o Harman Ram, Aged About 26 Years, Bhatiyan
Ji Ka Than, Raimalwara, District Jodhpur, Rajasthan.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, Department
Of Education, Secretariat, Jaipur, Rajasthan.
2. The Director, Department Of Elementary Education,
Bikaner, Rajasthan.
----Respondents
Connected With
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3747/2022
Mamta Baliyan D/o Shri Harman Ram, Aged About 26 Years, By
Caste Baliyan, R/o Bhatiyan Ji Ka Than, Raimalwara, District
Jodhpur, Rajasthan.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, Department
Of Education, Secretariat, Jaipur, Rajasthan.
2. The Director, Department Of Elementary Education,
Bikaner, Rajasthan.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Manish Patel.
For Respondent(s) :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN BHANSALI
Order
12/05/2022
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4787/2022
This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner aggrieved
against rejection of her candidature as divorcee for recruitment to
the post of Teacher Grade III (Level-I) for TSP area.
(2 of 4) [CW-4787/2022]
It is inter-alia claimed that the petitioner and her husband
mutually agreed to dissolve the marriage by agreement dated
17.09.2020 (Annex.5) and pursuant to the advertisement dated
31.12.2021, the petitioner applied for the post of Teacher Grade
III (Level-I) claiming her status as divorcee. However, her
candidature has been rejected vide Annex.6 inter-alia on the
ground that her decree of divorce is dated 21.03.2022, which is
after the last date of application.
Learned counsel for the petitioner made submissions that as
the parties had dissolved their marriage by way of customary
divorce by executing an agreement on 17.09.2020 (Annex.5), the
respondents, were not justified in referring to the decree dated
21.03.2022 and as on the date of application/last date of
application, the petitioner was a divorcee, her candidature on that
count could not have been rejected by the respondents.
Submissions have been made that the decree dated
21.03.2022 has been obtained by the petitioner by filing
application for mutual divorce on 09.03.2021 i.e. well before the
advertisement was issued on 31.12.2021 and, therefore, merely
on account of the fact that the decree has been granted on
21.03.2022, it cannot be said that the petitioner on the last date
of filing of the application was not a divorcee and as such, the
rejection of her candidature is not justified.
I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel
for the petitioner and have perused the material available on
record.
The advertisement dated 31.12.2021, inter-alia provided the
following clarification pertaining to the women candidates:-
(3 of 4) [CW-4787/2022]
"v. fo/kok vkosnd gksus dh fLFkfr esa l{ke izkf/kdkjh }kjk
tkjh ifr dh e`R;q dk izek.k&i= ,oa ifjR;drk efgyk
¼fookg&fofPNu½ vkosnd gksus dh fLFkfr esa l{ke U;k;ky; }kjk
tkjh fookg&foPNsn dh fMØ[email protected]"k bl HkrhZ esa vkWuykbZu vkosnu
dh vfUre frfFk ls iwoZ dk gksuk vfuok;Z gSA "
The indications made in the advertisement were specific that
for claiming the benefit of a divorce, the candidate was required to
produce a decree of the competent Court, which must be before
the last date of filing of the application.
The submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner
that as the petitioner has entered into a customary divorce with
her husband on 17.09.2020 (Annex.5) in view of the material
available on record, cannot be accepted.
Admittedly, the petitioner has filed the application under
Section 13 B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 ('the Act of 1955')
on 09.03.2021. A bare perusal of the judgment passed by the
Family Court No.1, Jodhpur indicates that she has indicated her
status as Mamta Baliyan D/o Harman Ram W/o Sh. Deepak Singh
Chouhan, i.e. as on 09.03.2021, she was still married to Sh.
Deepak Singh.
The very fact that the application has been filed under
Section 13 B of the Act of 1955 presupposes that the parties were
in subsisting marriage as the provisions of Section 13 B of the Act
specifically provides that the petition for dissolution of marriage by
decree of divorce may be presented to the Court by 'both the
parties to a marriage together' and, therefore, it is apparent that
on the date when the petitioner alongwith Deepak Singh Chouhan
filed the petition i.e. on 09.03.2021 their marriage was subsisting.
Further the Family Court based on the petition filed under
Section 13 B of the Act, has passed the following order:-
(4 of 4) [CW-4787/2022]
"6- vr% izkFkhZx.k nhidflag ,oa eerk ckfy;ku dk
izkFkZuk&i= vUrxZr /kkjk 13 ¼ch½ fgUnw fookg vf/kfu;e 1955
Lohdkj fd;k tkdj izkFkhZx.k nhidflag ,oa eerk ckfy;ku ds e/;
lEiUu gq;s fookg fnukad 23-05-2018 dks mudh ikjLifjd lgefr
ds vk/kkj ij rRdky izHkko ls fo?kfVr fd;k tkrk gSA fu.kZ;
vuqlkj fMØh ipkZ eqfrZc fd;k tkosA fMØh dh ,d&,d lR; izfr
izkFkhZx.k dks fu%"kqYd iznku dh tkosA"
(emphasis added)
A perusal of the order indicates that the marriage has been
dissolved forthwith, which necessarily mean that from the date of
decree i.e. 21.03.2022, once the marriage has been dissolved by
decree passed on 21.03.2022 under Section 13 B of the Act, the
claim made by the petitioner regarding dissolution of marriage by
agreement under customary law on 17.09.2020, has rightly not
been accepted by the respondents.
In view of the above fact situation as admittedly, the decree
passed by the competent Family Court is dated 21.03.2022 and
the last date of application was 09.02.2022, the petitioner could
not claim her status as divorcee and is consequently, not entitled
to any relief in her status as a divorcee.
Consequently, the petition has no substance, the same is,
therefore, dismissed.
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3747/2022
The writ petition, in view of the order passed in SBCWP
No.4787/2022, is also dismissed.
(ARUN BHANSALI),J
34-pradeep/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
