Allowed

Meenakshi Koted v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC6 Oct 2018CW/15594/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single judge allowed a writ petition seeking appointment as a Hindi teacher. The court invoked equitable jurisdiction to keep the petitioner's selection in abeyance for six months, requiring a vacant post, while she sought a civil court declaration of her customary divorce.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner's selection kept in abeyance for six months; one post kept vacant; appointment contingent on obtaining civil court declaration of divorce by 15.04.2019.

Meenakshi Koted Vs State of Rajasthan — Service and Employment | Rajasthan HC (2018)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶2

S.B. Civil Writ No. 15594/2018

¶3

Meenakshi Koted D/o Shri Ranchhod La Koted, Aged About 25 Years, Resident Of Village Paldewal, Tehsil Dungarpur, District Dungarpur.

¶4

----Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary To The Government, Department Of Education, Secretariat, Jaipur, Rajasthan.

¶7

The Director (Elementary Education), Bikaner.

¶8

Secretary, Department Of Personnel, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.

¶9

Rajasthan Public Services Commission, Through Secretary, Ajmer.

¶10

District Education Officer, Udaipur.

¶11

----Respondents

¶12

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. C.V.S. Shekhawat For Respondent(s) : Mr. Dinesh Ojha for Mr. P.R. Singh, AAG

¶13

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN BHANSALI

¶14

Order

¶15

06/10/2018

¶16

This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking a direction to the respondents to call the petitioner for counselling and give appointment to her on the post of Teacher Gr.-III (LevelII) Hindi pursuant to the advertisement dated 31.07.2018.

¶17

It is, inter alia, claimed that the petitioner has obtained customary divorce as is prevalent in the community to which the petitioner belongs i.e. Scheduled Tribe – Bheel on 24.06.2016; she applied in the category of divorcee and in the cut off issued by the

¶18

(2 of 5)

¶19

[CW-15594/2018]

¶20

respondents, she obtained more marks than the cut off, based on which, her name appeared in the list of selected candidates dated 03.09.2018 (Annexure-5). However, as the petitioner was not in possession of a decree from the jurisdictional court, the petitioner has not been called for counselling and appointment has not been accorded to the petitioner.

¶21

It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner had obtained customary divorce from her husband on 24.06.2016, which is evident from document Annexure-11, wehereafter the petitioner has filed a suit for declaration in this regard, which suit is pending consideration before the jurisdictional court at Dungarpur.

¶22

It is further submitted that the action of the respondents in not accepting the customary divorce and consequently not treating her as divorcee is not justified. In any case the respondents should have granted time to the petitioner to obtain a decree in this regard in the pending suit and, therefore, the action of the respondents deserves to be set aside.

¶23

Reliance has been placed on judgment in the case of Sunita Meena v. State of Rajasthan & Ors. : S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3991/2015, decided on 17.01.2017 at Jaipur Bench and upheld by the Division Bench in Rajasthan Public Service Commission v. Sunita Meena & Ors. : D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 829/2017, decided on 14.07.2017.

¶24

Learned counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that in absence of a decree from the competent court, the petitioner is not entitled to be considered as a divorcee and, therefore, her candidature has been rightly rejected. It is further submitted that in so far as the judgment in the case of Sunita

¶25

(3 of 5)

¶26

[CW-15594/2018]

¶27

Meena (supra) is concerned, the same was passed in the peculiar circumstances of the said case and the said judgment has no application to the facts of the present case and, therefore, the writ petition filed by the petitioner deserves to be dismissed.

¶28

I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the material available on record.

¶29

The document Annexure-11 produced by the petitioner for claiming divorce appears to be some document executed before the police authorities during proceedings between the parties, wherein, the reference with regard to the dissolution of marriage has been made. Whereafter the petitioner has filed proceedings before the competent civil court seeking declaration regarding dissolution of marriage, which are still pending.

¶30

The clause pertaining to the eligibility in the advertisement requires a decree from a competent civil court. However, the fact that in the community, to which, the petitioner belongs, there is a provision of customary divorce, also cannot be brushed aside lightly.

¶31

In the case of Sunita Meena (supra) in a similar nature case, wherein, even the petition seeking declaration filed by the petitioner therein was rejected by the Court, the learned Single Judge, inter alia, ordered as under:-

¶32

“In the circumstances, I am of the considered view, as also taken by this Court in the case of Durga Lal Meena (supra), that despite the dismissal of the petitioner’s suit for declaration of her marriage having been dissolved by the Family Court No.1, Jaipur vide order dated 29.07.2010, the petitioner should be allowed to lay a similar suit afresh before the jurisdictional Family Court seeking a declaration of her marriage to Ramphool Meena having been dissolved on 11.05.2008. This direction can also be sustained for the reason that the dismissal of the petitioner’s earlier suit by the Family Court vide its order dated 29.07.2010 for purported lack of jurisdiction was contrary to law and the Family Court had wrongly failed to exercise the jurisdiction vested in it under Sections 7 & 8 of the Act of 1984. It is

¶33

(4 of 5)

¶34

[CW-15594/2018]

¶35

directed that in the event of the petitioner filing such a suit before the Family Court No.1, Jaipur, it shall take all requisite steps for deciding it expeditiously and in any event within a period of three months from the date of service on the defendant. It is directed that in the event of non appearance of the petitioner’s ex-husband, despite service of notice in the petitioner’s suit the Family Court’s satisfaction of summons having been served, it shall proceed ex-parte.

¶36

The facts of the case also require this Court to invoke its extraordinary equitable jurisdiction to save, in the meantime the petitioner’s selection as a Senior Teacher Grade-II (Secondary Education) in the subject of Social Science following the competitive Examination 2011 for a period of 6 months from today. It is consequently directed that RPSC’s order dated 18.02.2015 cancelling the petitioner’s selection shall beheld in abeyance for the aforesaid period. One post of Senior Teacher Grade-II (Secondary Education) shall be kept vacant for the duration. In the event the petitioner is able to obtain a declaration from the Family Court of her marriage having been dissolved on 11.05.2008 within a period of the aforesaid 6 months from today, she shall be appointed to the post of Senior Teacher Grade-II (Secondary Education) on her satisfying all other requisite conditions.”

¶37

When the matter reached the Division Bench, the Division

¶38

Bench after referring to the determination made in the case, opined as under:-

¶39

“After we have heard counsel for the appellant Sh. Nitin Jain Adv., and going through the order impugned of the Ld. Single Judge dt. 17-1-2017 we find no error being committed which may call for our interference.”

¶40

The submissions of learned counsel for respondents that the judgment in the case of Sunita Meena (supra) is distinguishable has no substance, the circumstances of the present case, stand at a better footing, inasmuch as, the proceedings initiated by the petitioner are already pending before the competent civil court and it is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the matter is at the stage of evidence of the defendant.

¶41

In view of the law laid down in the case of Sunita Meena (supra) the petition filed by the petitioner is allowed. The petitioner’s selection as a Teacher Grade-III subject Hindi TSP shall not be cancelled for a period of six months from today/the

¶42

(5 of 5)

¶43

[CW-15594/2018]

¶44

same shall be kept in abeyance for the said period of six months and one post of Teacher Grade-III subject Hindi shall be kept vacant in the category to which the petitioner belongs for the said duration of six months. In the event the petitioner is able to obtain the declaration from the competent court, regarding dissolution of her marriage i.e. by 15.04.2019, she shall be appointed to the said post on her satisfying all other requisite conditions. On her failure to obtain such a decree, her selection shall stand cancelled.

¶45

(ARUN BHANSALI),J

¶46

A.K. Chouhan/-173

Meenakshi Koted v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Meenakshi Koted v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Jhandu Ram Yadav Vs State of Rajasthan

Pooran Mal Chhipa Vs the State of Rajasthan

Bhanu Priya Vaishnav Vs State of Rajasthan and Ors.

Rakesh Chander Vs State of Rajasthan

Manager Director,Manak Cement and Ors. Vs Smt.Meera and Ors.

Jitendra Solanki Vs the Ajmer Vidhyut Vitran Nigam Limited