Meera Ahari vs State Of Rajasthan ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 3246 Raj

Citation : 2023 Latest Caselaw 3246 Raj
Judgement Date : 19 April, 2023

Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Meera Ahari vs State Of Rajasthan ... on 19 April, 2023

Bench: Dinesh Mehta

[2023/RJJD/010759]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 16663/2018

Meera Ahari D/o Shri Nanalal Ahari, Aged About 33 Years, By Caste Meena Resident Of Pagalyaji Road, Bhairav Colony, Rishabdeo, Tehsil, District Udaipur (Raj.).

----Petitioner Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, Education Department, Govt. Of Rajasthan Secretariat, Jaipur.

2. The Director, Secondary Education, Bikaner.

3. The Secretary, Department Of Personnel, Govt. Of Raj., Secretariat, Jaipur.

4. Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Through Its Secretary.

5. The District Education Officer, Secondary Education, Udaipur.

----Respondents

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sikander Khan For Respondent(s) : Mr. Tarun Joshi, through VC Mr. Sarwan Kumar for Mr. Hemant Choudhary, G.C.

JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA Order 19/04/2023

1. By way of the present petition, the petitioner has challenged

action of the respondent-Commission, which has rejected

petitioner's candidature as a divorcee candidate.

2. Mr. Tarun Joshi, learned counsel appearing for the

respondent-Commission at the outset submitted that the issue

involved in the present writ petition has been set at rest by a

Division Bench of this Court vide its judgment dated 11.10.2022 in

the case of the Secretary, Rajasthan Public Service

Commission & Anr. Vs. Sangeeta Varhat & Ors in D.B.

Special Appeal (Writ) No.72/2022.

[2023/RJJD/010759] (2 of 3) [CW-16663/2018]

3. He highlighted that even recruitment notification in the case

of Sangeet Varhat (supra) was the same and therefore, the

petitioner is not entitled for any relief.

4. In the case of Sangeet Varhat (supra), this Court has held

thus:

" Admittedly, the respondents submitted application seeking appointment on advertised posts against the seats reserved for divorcee candidates. The decree of divorce issued by competent court was not possessed by the petitioners on the cut off date. The appointment in the divorcee category has been claimed on the ground of having obtained customary divorce and non application of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 upon marriages and divorce amongst the members of Scheduled Tribe/Tribal Sub Plan communities. We are of the considered opinion that the requirement of a decree of divorce for a female candidate to claim reservation against the reserved quota for divorcee women on the cut off date/on the last date of submitting application form is sine qua non and the candidature cannot be considered against said category in the absence of decree of divorce issued by the competent court. A custom cannot be allowed to supersede the terms and conditions governing the recruitment process. The terms and conditions of recruitment are framed to adhere to the mandate enshrined under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India which guarantee equal opportunities to all citizens for their advancement in the matter of employment.

Candidates belonging to Scheduled Tribe/Tribal Sub Plan are not precluded from

[2023/RJJD/010759] (3 of 3) [CW-16663/2018]

obtaining decree of divorce from the competent court having jurisdiction to decide the matrimonial disputes. Exemption from presenting decree of divorce, issued by competent court cannot be sought on the ground of customs prevalent in their communities. The customs/practices prevailing in a particular community cannot be allowed to supplement the terms and conditions of a recruitment process involving large number of candidates belonging to various caste, religion, faith and communities.

In view of aforesaid discussion, the judgment passed in the case of Sunita Meena (supra) is held per incuriam since, the judgment was rendered in ignorance of previous decisions of Hon'ble the Apex Court and co-ordinate Bench of this Court on the controversy dealing with the cut off date by reference to which eligibility requirements must be satisfied by a candidate seeking public employment.

In the result, the intra court appeals succeed and are hereby allowed. The order/judgment dated 12.09.2019 and 30.03.2021 under present appeals are set aside.