Rajasthan High Court
Durgesh Kumari Verma D/O Shri ... vs The State Of Rajasthan ... on 25 January, 2023
Bench: Sudesh Bansal
[2023/RJJP/000502]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 543/2023
Durgesh Kumari Verma D/o Shri Suresh Chand Verma, Aged
About 33 Years, R/o Village Matunda, Tehsil And District Bundi
(Raj.).
----Petitioner
Versus
1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Principle Secretary,
Panchayati Raj Department, Government Of Rajasthan,
Government Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. Zila Parishad, Kota Through Its Chief Executive Officer,
Kota (Raj.).
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Himanshu Jain
For Respondent(s) :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDESH BANSAL
Order
25/01/2023
The writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India has been filed by the petitioner challenging the action of
respondents whereby the petitioner has been denied
appointment on the post of Lower Division Clerk in the
category of female divorcee SC pursuant to advertisement
dated 14-2-2013.
2. The facts of the case are that pursuant to advertisement
dated 14-2-2013 for the post of LDC the petitioner being
eligible applied under the Female Divorce SC category,
participated in the selection process and secured 35.700
marks. She was called for documents verification and vide
[2023/RJJP/000502] (2 of 3) [CW-543/2023]
order dated 7-10-2022 the candidature of petitioner has been
rejected on account of having no decree of divorce.
3. Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that as there
was dispute of petitioner with her husband their nuptial ties
were terminated on 24-7-2012 and a divorce agreement was
executed. Thereafter on 17-10-2022 application under
Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act. 1955 has also been
filed. Counsel for petitioner submits that since marital ties of
petitioner with her husband have been terminated on 24-7-
2012, she is entitled for consideration her candidature in
female divorcee category.
4. Heard counsel for the petitioner and perused the
material available on record.
5. Counsel for petitioner does not dispute that the
petitioner has not obtained a decree of divorce from the court
and in order to show her status as divorcee, only an
agreement of divorce dated 24-7-2012 was relied upon.
Firstly, an agreement for divorce cannot be treated as decree
for divorce. Secondly, the agreement of divorce dated 24-7-
2012 itself contains a clause 5 for obtaining decree of
divorce, which reads thus:-
यह की भविष्य म में पक्षकपक्षकाषकारपक्षकान यपक्षका या द या दोना दोनों म में में सं में से क या दोई एक पक्ष इ में स वििपक्षकाह
विचं में सेया द की नपक्षकायपक्षकालय में सं में से े डसे डिडिकी ्री पपक्षकाप्त कषकारनपक्षका ्त करना चपक्षकाहं में से ना चाहे त या दो या द या दोना दोनों ह तो दोनों ही पक्षकपक्षकाषकारपक्षकान यपक्षका
या द या दोना दोनों म में में सं में से क या दोई भ तो दोनों ही एक पक्ष में समक्ष नपक्षकायपक्षकालय म में वििपक्षकाह विचं में सेया द की े डसे डिडिकी
्री पपक्षकाप्त कषकारनं में से हं में सेना चाहे तने हेतु आिं में सेया दन पत, कपक्षकायार्यिपक्षकाह तो दोनों ही ्री पप्रसने हेतुना चाहे त कषकार या द मेंकर देंगं में से/ कषकार या दं में सेकर देंगपक्षका, ना चाहे तथपक्षका जि में समं में से
या द या दोना दोनों पक्ष उपसपस्थिवना चाहे त ह या दोकषकार उक्त वििपक्षकाह विचं में सेया द की े डसे डिडिकी ्री पपक्षकाप्त कषकार ल मेंकर देंगं में से।
[2023/RJJP/000502] (3 of 3) [CW-543/2023]
Therefore the petitioner herself never treated the
agreement for divorce as final. It is also not in dispute that
after rejection of candidature of petitioner on 7-10-2022, the
petitioner has filed application under Section 13 of the Hindu
Marriage Act, 1955.
6. The legal position is well settled that the petitioner was
required to acquire the status of divorce by way of decree of
court before the last date of submission of application form
for the post of LDC pursuant to advertisement dated 14-2-
2013. Reference can be made to judgment of the Apex Court
in case of Rakesh Kumar Sharma Vs. State (NCT of Delhi
[(2013)11 SCC 58]. Admittedly, the petitioner does not
possess the decree of divorce, even till date. Therefore, this
court does not find any illegality on the part of respondents in
rejecting the candidature of petitioner in the category of
female divorcee SC.
7. For the discussion made herein above, there is no force
in the petition and the same is dismissed. No costs.
8. Stay application and all other pending application(s), if
any, also stand disposed of.
(SUDESH BANSAL),J
Arn/3
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
