The petitioner sought appointment as a Teacher Grade-III in the OBC Divorce category. The High Court rejected the petition, holding that the petitioner was not entitled to the reserved category as she lacked a valid decree of divorce by the last date of application submission.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1069/2021
Jyoti D/o Amar Chand, Aged About 26 Years, R/o Manota Khurd, Manota Kalan, Dist Bharatpur, Rajasthan.
----Petitioner
Versus
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Kapil Bhardwaj For Respondent(s) : Mr. Bharat Saini
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE INDERJEET SINGH
Order
08/04/2022
This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner with the
following prayers;
“It is, most respectfully prayed that Your Lordship may graciously be pleased to admit and allow this writ petition and(I) Issue a writ order or direction in the nature thereof thereby direct the respondents to consider the candidature petitioner for appointment on the post of Teacher Grade-III, Level-II subject Social Science, as per the merit under the “OBC Divorce category” under advertisement dated 31.07.2018 in the larger interest of justice. (ii) Issue any other writ order or direction, which this Hon’ble Court deems fit and proper, may kindly be (passed in favour of the petitioner. (iii) Cost of the writ petitioner may also be awarded in favour of the petitioner.”
(2 of 3)
[CW-1069/2021]
In pursuance to the advertisement dated 31.07.2018 the petitioner applied for the post of Teacher-Grade III and the candidature of the petitioner was rejected by the respondent(s) on the ground of not having the decree of divorce on the last date of submitting the application form.
Counsel for the petitioner submits that despite being higher in merit under the Divorcee category the respondent(s) have wrongly denied appointment to the petitioner on the ground of not having the decree of divorce whereas the petitioner has applied for decree of divorce before submitting the application form.
Counsel for the respondent(s) opposed the writ petition and submitted that the law on this point has been settled by the Division Bench of this Court in the matter of State of Rajasthan & Anr. Vs. Jagdish Prasad & Anr. (D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No. 611/2016) decided on 09.09.2016 as well as in the matter of Parul Khurana Vs. High Court of Judicature of Rajasthan (D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1004/2022) decided on 27.01.2022 where in Para Nos. 6 & 7 it has been held as under;
“6. Be that as it may. Since the petitioner was not a ‘Divorced Female’ as on the last date of submission of application forms, she was not entitled to apply in the said category and as a consequence, the respondents were absolutely justified in rejecting the petitioner’s candidature in the category of Divorcee Female. Law in this regard is well settled by Hon’ble the Supreme Court in the case of Ashok Kumar Sonkar vs. Union of India, reported in (2007)3 SCC 956 wherein, the Hon’ble Court was considering the aspect of the candidate not holding the requisite academic qualification by the last date of submission of the application forms. It was held that if the Rules and the
(3 of 3)
[CW-1069/2021]
recruitment notification are silent, the last date for considering the qualification would be the last date of submission of the application forms. In the present scenario, admittedly, the petitioner was not a Divorcee on the last date of submission of the application forms and thus, she was not entitled to apply in such category. As a matter of fact, she made a mis-statement of being divorced while applying against the seats reserved for Divorcee Female aspirants. Hence, the respondents were absolutely justified in rejecting the petitioner’s candidature by the impugned notice dated 15.12.2021 which is perfectly in accordance with law. 7. In support of his contentions, Shri Rakesh Arora has placed reliance on the Single Bench Judgment in the case of Reetu Kalasua Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. reported in 2014 (3) WLC (Raj.) 137. It may be mentioned here that the Judgment of Reetu Kalasua (supra), which in turn was rendered on the ratio of a Division Bench Judgment in the case of State of Rajasthan & Ors. vs. Ms. Jamna Rajpurohit reported in 2013(4) CDR 2275 (Raj.) were both considered by a Division Bench in the case of State of Rajasthan vs. Jagdish Prasad (D.B. Civil Special Apeal (Writ) No.611/2016) decided on 09.09.2016 and the Hon’ble Division Bench has declared the Judgment rendered in the case of Ms. Jamna Rajpurohit (supra) to be per incuriam. Manifestly thus, the judgment in the case of Reetu Kalasua (supra) relied upon by Shri Arora does not lay down the correct preposition of law and hence is of no help whatsoever to the petitioner.”
In that view of the matter, the present writ petition is dismissed in view of the judgments passed by the Division Bench of this Court in the matter of State of Rajasthan & Parul Khurana (both supra).
(INDERJEET SINGH),J
CHETNA BEHRANI /246
2 issues framed by the court
Whether a candidate who applies for a decree of divorce before submitting the employment application form but does not possess the decree by the last date of submission is eligible to claim reservatio
Whether the suitably qualified candidate was a divorcee on the last date of submission of the application forms.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
State of Rajasthan & Anr. Vs. Jagdish Prasad & Anr.Relied on¶20
State of Rajasthan & Anr. Vs. Jagdish Prasad & Anr. (D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No. 611/2016)
Parul Khurana Vs. High Court of Judicature of RajasthanRelied on¶20
Parul Khurana Vs. High Court of Judicature of Rajasthan (D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1004/2022)
Ashok Kumar Sonkar vs. Union of IndiaExplained¶21
Ashok Kumar Sonkar vs. Union of India, reported in (2007)3 SCC 956 · Who else cites this
Reetu Kalasua Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.Distinguished¶21
Reetu Kalasua Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.
State of Rajasthan & Ors. vs. Ms. Jamna RajpurohitDistinguished¶21
State of Rajasthan & Ors. vs. Ms. Jamna Rajpurohit
Jyoti D/o Amar Chand
State Of Rajasthan
Director, Elementary Education Department
Inderjeet Singh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
