Allowed

Smt Shakuntala v. State of Raj and Ors.

Rajasthan HC1 Oct 2021CW/10619/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This single judge order allowed a writ petition seeking appointment under the divorcee quota for a principal secretary of rural development. The court held that the petitioner, a divorcee when she applied, was eligible for appointment despite her subsequent remarriage, relying on prior precedent. The appointment order was restored, and she was directed to join service with benefits from the date o

What did the court decide?

Petitioner's appointment order restored; respondents directed to allow joining on General Teacher Level-II post, assign seniority notionally, and release benefits from 15.05.2018.

Smt Shakuntala Vs State of Raj and Ors. — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Rajasthan HC (2021)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10619/2018

¶3

Smt. Shakuntala Daughter Of Late Shri Suraj Mal Wife Of Shri Manoj Kumar Deedwania, And Resident Of B-214, Chandravardai Nagar, Ajmer.

¶4

----Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary, Rural Development And Panchayati Raj Department, G, Secretariat, Jaipur Raj..

¶7

The Zila Parishad, Ajmer Through Its Chief Executive Officer.

¶8

The Director, Elementary Education, Directorate - Rajasthan, Bikaner.

¶9

The District Education Officer, Elementary Education, Ajmer.

¶10

----Respondents

¶11

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Harshit Mittal For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vaibhav Thakuria for Dr. Ganesh Meena, AAG

¶12

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA

¶13

Order

¶14

01/10/2021

¶15

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the issue involved in the present petition stands finally adjudicated by this Court in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.15594/2016 (Rashmi Agarwal vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr.) which has been affirmed by the Division Bench of this Court in D.B. Special Appeal Writ No.247/2017 (State of Rajasthan & Anr. Versus Rashmi Agarwal) the Division Bench has in its operative portion held as under:-

¶16

(2 of 5)

¶17

[CW-10619/2018]

¶18

“The issue at hand is squarely covered by Division Bench decision dated 18.04.2017 in case of Rashmi Agrawal (supra). The operative portion thereof is reproduced hereunder :-

¶19

“Having perused the impugned order we find no infirmity therein. The view taken is that eligibility is with reference to the last date of submitting the applications and not the declaration of the result. The respondent was a divorcee on the date when she applied. She got re-married when result were declared. Her entitlement for appointment under the divorcee quota has rightly been upheld.

¶20

The writ-appeal is dismissed. The stay application also stands dismissed. No costs”

¶21

Vide aforesaid judgment dated 18.04.2017 the Division Bench has affirmed the judgment dated 23.11.2016 rendered in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.15594/2016 (Rashmi Agrwal vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr.). It will not be out of place to reproduce the relevant portion of the judgment dated 23.11.2016 rendered by the Coordinate Bench of this Court :-

¶22

“Two questions have arisen for consideration before this Court; (a) Whether a candidate who re-marry will lose status of Divorcee and (b) what is the reckoning date for determination eligibility of the candidate in the category of Divorcee.

¶23

It is not doubt that when the petitioner went to join her services, she was married lady, but it is also undeniable that when the petitioner applied and on the last date of submission of application form, the petitioner was Divorcee. Therefore, the status of the petitioner is to be determined on the last date for submission of application form. A subsequent event cannot take away legal character of the petitioner, which existed on the last date for submission of application form. Surely,

¶24

(3 of 5)

¶25

[CW-10619/2018]

¶26

policy of the state is not to encourage that a Divorcee should remain Divorcee for ever.

¶27

Thus, a hyper-technical objection cannot be raised by the respondents qua the reckoning date for determination of the legal character of the petitioner, whether she was Divorcee or not on the last date fixed for submission of application form. Since, on the last date for submission of application form, the petitioner was a Divorcee, she is entitled to appointment and joining in pursuance thereof.

¶28

Consequently, the present petition is allowed. The action of the respondents whereby petitioner has been denied appointment is set aside. The respondents are directed to permit the petitioner to join her place of posting within one month from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order”.

¶29

Following the aforesaid Single Bench judgment dated 23.11.2016 duly affirmed by Division Bench, vide order dated 18.04.2017, the present writ petition is allowed. Petitioner’s rejection on the ground of her remarriage is quashed and set aside.

¶30

Respondents are directed to give appointment to the petitioner in accordance with law and issue order of appointment, if she falls in merit list and is otherwise eligible. The needful be done within a period of eight weeks from today.”

¶31

Having perused the impugned order, this Court finds no infirmity in the case of Rashmi Agarwal (supra), the Co-ordinate Bench held as under:-

¶32

“Two questions have arisen for consideration before this Court; (a) Whether a candidate who remarry will lose status of Divorcee and (b) what is the reckoning date for determination eligibility of the candidate in the category of Divorcee.

¶33

It is no doubt that when the petitioner went to join her services, she was married lady, but it is also

¶34

(4 of 5)

¶35

[CW-10619/2018]

¶36

undeniable that when the petitioner applied and on the last date of submission of application form, the petitioner was Divorcee. Therefore, the status of the petitioner is to be determined on the last date for submission of application form. A subsequent event cannot take away legal character of the petitioner, which existed on the last date for submission of application form. Surely, policy of the State is not to encourage that a Divorcee should remain Divorcee for ever.

¶37

¶38

Since, on the last date for submission of application form, the petitioner was a Divorcee, she is entitled to appointment and joining in pursuance thereof.

¶39

¶40

Learned counsel submits that the petitioner too was a divorcee on the day when she applied under the advertisement dated 24.02.2012 however, she re-married on 21.04.2015. Although earlier result was declared under the advertisement dated 24.02.2012 and the same was revised in 2017 but the petitioner was denied appointment on the ground that she had by that time got re-married.

¶41

(5 of 5)

¶42

[CW-10619/2018]

¶43

Learned counsel has also pointed out that on 27.06.2017 appointment order was issued but the petitioner was denied vide order dated 30.04.2018 to join.

¶44

Learned counsel for the respondent does not deny the law and the view taken by the courts as noted above however, submits that the petitioner had got re-married and her marital status was to be examined on the day when she joins.

¶45

I have considered the submissions.

¶46

Taking into consideration the law as laid down in Rashmi Agarwal (supra) which has been also reported again in S.B. Civil Writ petition No.13211/2017 (Haseena Banu Dyer Versus State of Rajasthan & Ors.) decided on 13.10.2017, this writ petition deserves to be allowed, the petitioner’s appointment order dated 27.06.2017 is restored and the respondents are directed to allow the petitioner to join on the post of General Teacher Level -II (Sanskrit) and also assign her seniority notionally and her actual benefits shall be released from the date of filing of the writ petition i.e. 15.05.2018.

¶47

In view of above, the writ petition is allowed. Compliance of this order shall be made within a period of one month.

¶48

(SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA),J

¶49

SAURABH/92

Smt Shakuntala v. State of Raj and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Shakuntala v. State of Raj and Ors.

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

Ganesh Yadav S/O Shri Ram Pratap Yadav Vs the State of Rajasthan

Parvez Khan S/O Shri Abdul Rahim Vs State of Rajasthan

Suresh Kumar Meel Vs R S R T C and Ors.

Pushpendra Singh S/O Late Shri Dharam Singh Vs State of Rajasthan

Jitesh Kumari D/O Virender Singh Vs State of Rajasthan

Neeraj Andana D/O Ramveer Singh, W/O Brashbhan Patel Vs the State of Rajasthan