Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Manjula Meena vs Rajasthan Staff Selection Board ... on 7 December, 2023
[2023:RJ-JD:42612]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12471/2023
Manjula Meena D/o Govind Lal Meena, Aged About 37 Years,
Village Makadjapa, Tehsil Rishabhdeo, District Udaipur.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. Rajasthan Staff Selection Board, Through Its President,
State Institute Of Agriculture Management Premises,
Durgapura, Jaipur (Rajasthan).
2. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, Panchayati
Raj Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat,
Jaipur.
3. The Director, Primary Education, Bikaner.
4. The District Education Officer, Primary Education, Udaipur.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Bharat Shrimali.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vinit Sanadhya.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN MONGA
Order
07/12/2023
1. Petitioner seeks following relief:-
"(i) By an appropriate writ order or direction,
the respondents may kindly be directed to treat
the petitioner's candidature being as "ST,
divorcee Category" in TSP area for appointment
on the post of Teacher (Level-I), in pursuant to
the recruitment notification dated 16.12.2022
(Annexure-6).
(ii) By an appropriate writ order or direction,
the petitioner may be considered on the post of
Teacher (Level-I) under the category "ST
Divorcee Category" for TSP area with all
consequential benefits, in pursuant to the
recruitment notification dated 16.12.2022
(Annexure-6).
(iii) Any other relief which the Hon'ble Court
considers just and proper in the facts and
[2023:RJ-JD:42612] (2 of 4) [CW-12471/2023]
circumstances of the case may kindly be granted
in favour of the petitioner.
(iv) Costs of the writ petition may kindly be
awarded to the petitioner."
2. On a Court query, learned counsel for the petitioner contends
that petitioner has not been granted any decree of divorce by the
competent family court in accordance with law and she is relying
on a divorce, which has taken place by customs followed in Meena
community.
3. Learned counsel for the respondents relies on a judgment in
the Secretary RPSC & Anr. v. Sangeeta Varhat & Anr.: D.B.
Special Appeal (Writ) No.72/2022, decided on 10.11.2022,
whereby, in a similar controversy, the Division Bench of this Court
has allowed the appeal filed by the State.
4. For ready reference, the relevant portion of judgment relied
on by learned counsel for the respondents is reproduced
hereinbelow:-
"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
[2023:RJ-JD:42612] (3 of 4) [CW-12471/2023]
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
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
[2023:RJ-JD:42612] (4 of 4) [CW-12471/2023]
dated 12.9.2019 and 30.03.2021 under present
appeals are set aside.
No order as to costs."
5. Being so, I find no ground to grant any indulgence under
extraordinary jurisdiction of writ jurisdiction.
6. The petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to
seek the benefit of being a divorcee as and when her marriage is
dissolved by way of granting a divorce decree in accordance with
law.
(ARUN MONGA),J
7-Sumit/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
