[Cites 0, Cited by 0]
Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Manju Agarwal vs State Of Rajasthan (2026:Rj-Jd:12667) on 17 March, 2026
Author: Kuldeep Mathur
Bench: Kuldeep Mathur
[2026:RJ-JD:12667]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 19255/2025
Manju Agarwal D/o Ballabh Ram Agarwal, Aged About 44 Years,
Ram Nagar Colony, Behind Neb, Near Saraswati School, Alwar
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Director, Secondary
Education, Bikaner.
2. Joint Director, School Education (Jodhpur Division),
Opposite Ratanada Police Lines, Jodhpur (Raj.)
3. Chief Block Education Officer (C.b.e.o), Bhopalgarh,
District Jodhpur
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Jitendra Singh Bhaleria
For Respondent(s) : Mr. N.K. Mehta
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP MATHUR
Order
17/03/2026
1. By way of filing the present writ petition, the petitioner has
prayed for the following reliefs:-
"In conspectus of the aforesaid state of facts it is humbly prayed
that this Honorable Court may be pleased to accept and allow this writ
petition and
A. Issue an appropriate writ order or direction, quashing and setting
aside the impugned order dated 29.8.2025 (Annexure-12) and
30.8.2025 (Annexure-14).
B. Issue and an appropriate writ, order or directing the respondents to
reinstate the petitioner along with a direction for payment of all
consequential benefits along with interest @ 18% p.a.
C. And pass any other order which this Honorable Court deem fit and
proper in facts and circumstances of the case in favor of the Petitioner.
D. Award Cost of Petition"
2. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and upon
perusal of the material available on record, this Court finds that
the petitioner was appointed to the post of Senior Teacher (Social
Science) vide order dated 24.02.2024 issued by the Divisional
Joint Director, School Education, Jodhpur, against a post reserved
for "widow /divorcee candidates".
(Uploaded on 18/03/2026 at 02:21:13 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:12667] (2 of 4) [CW-19255/2025]
3. Pursuant to the appointment order dated 24.02.2024
(Annexure-3), the petitioner joined her services on a probation
basis at Government Senior Secondary School, Budkiya,
Bhopalgarh, Jodhpur. While serving on the said post, she was
served with a notice dated 10.06.2025 (Annexure-5) alleging that,
at the time of appearing in the competitive examination for the
post of Senior Teacher (Social Science), she had furnished
incorrect information regarding the number of her children.
4. As per the notice dated 10.06.2025 (Annexure-5), although
the petitioner had three children, she had stated in her application
and supporting documents that she had only two children. Upon
receipt of the said notice, the petitioner submitted a detailed
explanation denying any misrepresentation of facts in securing the
appointment. In her reply petitioner stated that as per the
conditions mentioned in the divorce decree dated 19.11.2019
(Annexure-1) passed by competent Family Court, she has custody
of her two children whereas one child is born out of her wedlock
with Shri Rajendra is living with his father. On these grounds, she
requested that notice dated 10.06.2025 (Annexure-5) be
withdrawn. However, Divisional Joint Director, School Education,
Jodhpur, vide order dated 29.08.2025 (Annexure-12), terminated
the services of the petitioner from the post of Senior Teacher
(Social Science) on the ground that she had submitted an
incorrect affidavit regarding the number of her children to secure
appointment.
5. Before perusing further Rule 29(4) proviso (v) of the
Rajasthan Educational (State and Subordinate) Service Rules,
(Uploaded on 18/03/2026 at 02:21:13 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:12667] (3 of 4) [CW-19255/2025]
2021 (hereinafter referred as Rules of 2021) is reproduced below
for ready reference:-
"(4) No candidate shall be eligible for appointment to the service
who has more than two children on or after 1st June, 2002.
"Provided that,-
(i) the candidate having more than two children shall not be
deemed to be disqualified for appointment so long as the number
of children he/she has on 1st June, 2002,does not increase.
(ii) where a candidate has only one child from earlier delivery but
more than one child are born out of a single subsequent delivery,
the children so born shall be deemed to be one entity while
counting the total number of children.
(iii) while counting the total number of children of a candidate,
the child born from earlier delivery and having disability shall not
be counted.
(iv) any candidate who performed remarriage which is not
against any law and before such the remarriage he is not
disqualified for appointment under this sub-rule, he shall not be
disqualified if any child is born out of single delivery from such
remarriage.
(v) the provisions of this sub-rule shall not be applicable
to the appointment of a widow and divorcee women."
(Emphasis supplied).
6. Heard.
7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having
perused the material available on record this Court finds that on a
comprehensive reading of Rule 29(4) proviso (v) of Rules of 2021,
widow and divorcee candidates seeking appointment in the
respondent-department are exempted from the condition of not
having more than two children on or after 01.06.2002. In other
words, even if the petitioner had more than two children on or
after 01.06.2002, she would not suffer from any disqualification or
ineligibility for appointment to the post of Senior Teacher in view
of Rule 29 (4) proviso (v) of Rule of 2021.
8. It is true that the petitioner, in response to the queries in the
application form, ought to have disclosed the correct facts
regarding the number of her children. However, in the opinion of
this Court, in view of Rule 29(4) proviso (v) of Rules of 2021, such
non-disclosure is not material, as the petitioner's appointment
(Uploaded on 18/03/2026 at 02:21:13 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:12667] (4 of 4) [CW-19255/2025]
could not have been denied on the ground of having more than
two children on or after 01.06.2002.
9. The present case appears to be one where the petitioner,
either out of anxiety, fear of losing employment, or ignorance,
failed to disclose the correct information regarding the number of
her children. The alleged concealment/suppression is immaterial
and does not affect her eligibility or suitability for the post of
Senior Teacher (Social Science). In these circumstances, and in
light of Rule 29(4) proviso (v) of Rules of 2021, the respondents
ought not to have terminated her services and should have acted
more reasonably, either by issuing a warning or by imposing a
minor penalty in accordance with law.
10. In view of the above discussion, the present writ petition is
allowed. The impugned orders dated 29.08.2025 (Annexure-12)
and 30.08.2025 (Annexure-14), terminating the services of the
petitioner from the post of Senior Teacher (Social Science), are
quashed and set aside. The respondents are directed to reinstate
the petitioner in service forthwith. However, considering the
peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioner shall
not be entitled to back wages, though she shall be entitled to
consequential benefits such as seniority and pay fixation.
11. The exercise of reinstatement of the petitioner in service and
grant of consequential benefits, as indicated above, shall be
completed within a period of 30 days from the date of this order.
(KULDEEP MATHUR),J
54-sonia/-
(Uploaded on 18/03/2026 at 02:21:13 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
