Ms. Savita Kumari Meena vs State Of Rajasthan ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 2662 Raj

[2023/RJJD/008422]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7211/2021

Ms. Savita Kumari Meena D/o Devi Singh, Aged About 30 Years, Village Gundalpur, Ratichand Ji Ka Kheda, Tehsil Badi Sadri, District Chittorgarh.

----Petitioner Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Secretary, Department Of Home Affairs, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.

2. The Director General Of Police, Headquarters, Jaipur.

3. The Inspector General Of Police, Udaipur Range, Udaipur.

4. The Superintendent Of Police, Udaipur.

----Respondents

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Bhakti Singh for Mr. Sushil Solanki For Respondent(s) : Mr. Manish Vyas, AAG with Mr. Kailash Choudhary

JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA

Order

04/04/2023

1. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the

respondents have illegally rejected the petitioner's candidature, as

the petitioner had neither enclosed decree of divorce with the

application form nor has she produced the same at the time of

document verification.

2. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the

petitioner relied upon the judgment of this Court dated

13.01.2021 passed in the case of Indra Rana vs. State of

Rajasthan & Ors. (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11534/2019).

3. Mr. Manish Vyas, learned Additional Advocate General

on the other hand argued that the petitioner's reliance upon the

[2023/RJJD/008422] (2 of 2) [CW-7211/2021]

judgment in the case of Indra Rana (supra) and basic judgment of

Sunita Meena vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (S.B. Civil Writ

Petition No. 3991/2015) decided on 17.01.2017 cannot be

countenanced particularly because the view of Single Bench of this

Court has been reversed by the Division Bench of this Court in the

case of The Secretary, Rajasthan Public Service Commission,

Ajmer & Anr. vs. Sangeeta Varhat & Ors (D.B. Special Appeal

(Writ) No. 72/2022 decided on 10.11.2022.

4. He further submitted that even if petitioner's case is

considered as a divorcee', she cannot get any appointment,

inasmuch as, she had obtained only 22.05 marks, whereas, cut-off

marks for divorcee' category was 29.125.

5. In view of the fact that petitioner has failed to secure

requisite marks, the present petition is dismissed.

6. All pending interlocutory applications and the stay

application also stand dismissed.

(DINESH MEHTA),J 53-Mak/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)