Dismissed

Komal Khatri v. the Honble High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jodhpur

Rajasthan HC15 Sept 2022CW/13287/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner, a divorced female, sought reservation benefits in a Civil Judge recruitment before her decree was finalized. The Court held that eligibility is determined by the application deadline, dismissed her writ petition, and quashed the rejection order by order dated 15/09/2022.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed as devoid of merit; rejection of candidature upheld; order quashed.

Komal Khatri Vs the Honble High Court of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Rajasthan HC (2022)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶2

D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13287/2022

¶3

Komal Khatri D/o Shri L N Khatri, Aged About 41 Years, G-88, Ff1, Parsvnath City, Dps Sangriya By Pass, Jodhpur, Rajasthan.

¶4

----Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

The Honble High Court Of Judicature For Rajasthan At Jodhpur, Through The Registrar General, Rajasthan High Court, Principal Seat Jodhpur, Rajasthan.

¶7

The Registrar (Exam), Rajasthan High Court, Principal Seat Jodhpur.

¶8

Monika D/o Shri Ramesh Kumar, Through The Registrar (Exam), Rajasthan High Court, Principal Seat Jodhpur.

¶9

----Respondents

¶10

For Petitioner(s) : Dr. Nupur Bhati, Adv. For Respondent(s) : --

¶11

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MEHTA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP MATHUR

¶12

Order PRONOUNCED ON ::: 15/09/2022 RESERVED ON ::: 08/09/2022

¶13

BY THE COURT: (PER HON’BLE KULDEEP MATHUR, J.)

¶14

Briefly stated facts of the case are that the respondents issued a recruitment notification dated 22.07.2021 inviting applications for direct recruitment to the cadre of Civil Judge.

¶15

The petitioner applied for the said post on 27.08.2021 pursuant to the notification dated 22.07.2021. Reservations were provided for the category of “Divorced Female” in the recruitment process.

¶16

The petitioner claims that she was married in the year 04.07.2003. However, the matrimonial relations turned sour and

¶17

(2 of 4)

¶18

[CW-13287/2022]

¶19

thus, the petitioner filed an application under Section 13 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 seeking divorce. The decree of divorce was granted on 09.11.2021.

¶20

The petitioner had appeared in the preliminary examination conducted for the cadre of Civil Judge on 28.11.2021. In the result of Preliminary Examination declared by the respondents, the petitioner was declared successful. Thereafter, the petitioner appeared in the Mains Examination for the post of Civil Judge held on 30.04.2022 and 01.05.2022. The petitioner submitted representation dated 12.11.2021 to the respondents with a request to consider her candidature in the category of “Divorcee Female”. The respondents however, did not accept the request of the petitioner for change in category. Upon which, she has approached this Court through this writ petition.

¶21

Dr. Nupur Bhati, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner vehemently argued that the respondents were totally unjustified in considering the candidature of the petitioner in the category of “OBC-NCL Married” because the application preferred by her under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 was filed way before the submission of the application form pursuant to the recruitment notification dated 22.07.2021. The decree of divorce was also granted in her favour on 09.11.2021 i.e. well before the Preliminary Examination and Mains Examination were held. She further contended that the rule for reservation qua divorcee being benevolent legislation, the respondents should have permitted the petitioner to change the category.

¶22

(3 of 4)

¶23

[CW-13287/2022]

¶24

We have given our thoughtful consideration to the submissions advanced by the petitioner’s counsel and perused the material available on record.

¶25

The recruitment notification in question, in no uncertain terms, stipulated that the reservation was being offered to "Divorced Female". For a person, applying in the said category, the status of being divorced was imperative.

¶26

It is a settled proposition of law that candidature and eligibility of an incumbent is required to be decided as on the date of advertisement/last date for submission of the applications unless otherwise stipulated. The Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Ashok Kumar Sonkar vs. Union of India , reported in (2007) 3 SCC 956 held that if the Rules and the recruitment notification are silent, the last date for considering the qualification would be the last date for submission of the application forms. The co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Parul Khurana vs. High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan At Jodhpur (D.B. C.W.P. No. 1004/2022) decided on 27.01.2022 held as under:

¶27

“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.”

¶28

In the present case, admittedly, the petitioner did not fall in the category of “Divorced Female” as on the last date of submission of application forms, and thus, she could not have applied in the said category. The respondents have rightly

¶29

(4 of 4) [CW-13287/2022]

¶30

considered the petitioner's candidature in the category of “OBCNCL Married”. The action of the respondents is therefore, perfectly in accordance with law.

¶31

As a consequence, the writ petition fails and in hereby dismissed as being devoid of merit.

¶32

(KULDEEP MATHUR),J (SANDEEP MEHTA),J

¶33

KshamaD/-

Komal Khatri v. the Honble High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jodhpur

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Komal Khatri v. the Honble High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jodhpur

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Madan Das Vs State of Rajasthan

State of Rajasthan Vs Shri Nath Stc College

State of Rajasthan Vs Shiv Teacher Training College

Dr. Ranjan Mathur Vs State of Rajasthan

Lrs of Shobha Mehta Vs Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Udaipur

State of Rajasthan Vs Mahendra Singh Rathore