Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Seema Kumari Dendor vs State Of Rajasthan (2024:Rj-Jd:10600) on 4 March, 2024
[2024:RJ-JD:10600]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13649/2023
Seema Kumari Dendor D/o Shri Manshankar Dendor, Aged About
25 Years, R/o Mukam Navagara And Post Mevda, Tehsil
Simalwara, District Dungarpur, Rajasthan.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary, Department Of
Education, Jaipur, Rajasthan.
2. The Director, Primary Education, Bikaner, Rajasthan.
3. Rajasthan Staff Selection Board, Through Secretary, State
Institute Of Agriculture Management Premises, Tonk Rd,
Shreeji Nagar, Prithviraj Colony, Durgapura, Jaipur,
Rajasthan.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Mahendra Vishnoi
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Priyanshu Gopa
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN MONGA
Order(oral)
04/03/2024
1. Grievance of the petitioner herein arises out of the inaction
on the part of the respondents in not accepting his candidature on
the ground of not having the divorce decree on the date of
document verification.
2. Relevant facts are: -
2.1 The Staff Selection Board issued an advertisement dated
16.12.2022 for the post of Primary Teacher inviting applications by
cut off date i.e. 19.01.2023. Petitioner applied for the same in
TSP, ST-divorcee category.
2.2 The petitioner submitted all her requisite documents. She
also furnished mutual settlement agreement dated 08.11.2017
executed between her and her husband. It is stated that petitioner
and her husband mutually agreed to dissolve their marriage but
till then no Court proceedings were instituted to seek divorce. She
[2024:RJ-JD:10600] (2 of 3) [CW-13649/2023]
later filed a petition seeking divorce before the learned Family
Court on 08.02.2023.
2.3 Respondents declared the result of offline examination vide a
notice dated 26.05.2023. A list of provisionally selected candidates
was issued, wherein the name of the petitioner was also
mentioned. Accordingly, she was called for document verification
on 08.07.2023.
2.4 It is thereafter that the petitioner submitted the divorce
decree dated 26.07.2023. She also filed a representation dated
02.08.2023 (Annexure-7) requesting the respondents to consider
her candidature in divorcee category. But the same was not dealt
with. Aggrieved by the aforementioned inaction of the
respondents, petitioner filed the instant writ petition.
3. In the aforesaid backdrop, I have heard the rival contentions
of learned counsel.
4. Learned counsel for the respondents at the outset argues
that in view of the D.B. judgment rendered in D.B. Special Appeal
(Writ) No. 72/2022 (Rajasthan Public Service Commission & Anr.
Vs. Sangeeta Varhat & Ors.) & other connected matter, claim of
the petitioner to consider her in the category of divorcee cannot
be accepted. It is conceded case that as on the cut-off date, she
did not have a decree of divorce granted by the competent Court.
Thus, she is disentitled to be considered in the divorcee category.
5. The aforesaid submission is not controverted on facts.
However, the learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that,
as on the date of document verification, admittedly, the petitioner
did not though have the divorce decree, but the same was
[2024:RJ-JD:10600] (3 of 3) [CW-13649/2023]
obtained by her just about 20 days of the document verification
round. Lenient view thereof should be taken.
6. From the bare narrative of the facts, it is clearly borne out
that as on the cut off date, legally speaking, the petitioner was not
only married, but had not even initiated any Court process to seek
decree of divorce. One does not know if such a decree, based on
an ante dated self serving mutual settlement agreeing to dissolve
marriage, was motivated on account of seeking privileged
treatment under the divorcee category. Pertinently, the divorce
decree is also ex parte.
7. Be that as it may, as on cut off date the petitioner was not
eligible to apply as a divorcee. If her eligibility acquired after the
cut off date is accepted, the same would amount to shifting the
cut off date for individual gain of the petitioner as against others.
8. There is no gainsaying that the recruitment agency would
have rejected the applications of all those candidates who did not
have the divorce decree as on the cut-off date by not considering
them in the divorcee category. The petitioner cannot, therefore, be
given undue advantage by stealing a march over those candidates
who were not considered for not having the valid decree.
9. In the premise, this Court is unable to grant any indulgence
to the petitioner as the same would amount to changing the rules
of the game once the match had begun.
10. No grounds to interfere, the petition is dismissed accordingly.
11. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
(ARUN MONGA),J
11-DhananjayS/-
Whether Reportable: Yes
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
