Dismissed

Manjula Meena v. Rajasthan Staff Selection Board

Rajasthan HC7 Dec 2023CW/12471/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Single Judge upheld the requirement of a decree from a competent court for a candidate to claim reservation under the divorcee category. The Court held that community customs cannot supersede recruitment terms and dismissed the petition.

What did the court decide?

The petition was disposed of with liberty to seek benefits upon obtaining a divorce decree granted in accordance with law.

Manjula Meena Vs Rajasthan Staff Selection… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Rajasthan HC (2023)

¶1

[2023:RJ-JD:42612]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶3

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12471/2023

¶4

Manjula Meena D/o Govind Lal Meena, Aged About 37 Years, Village Makadjapa, Tehsil Rishabhdeo, District Udaipur.

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

Rajasthan Staff Selection Board, Through Its President, State Institute Of Agriculture Management Premises, Durgapura, Jaipur (Rajasthan).

¶8

State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, Panchayati Raj Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.

¶9

The Director, Primary Education, Bikaner.

¶10

The District Education Officer, Primary Education, Udaipur.

¶11

----Respondents

¶12

For Petitioner(s)	: Mr. Bharat Shrimali.
For Respondent(s)	: Mr. Vinit Sanadhya.

¶13

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN MONGA

¶14

Order

¶15

07/12/2023

¶16

1. Petitioner seeks following relief:-

¶17

“(i) By an appropriate writ order or direction, the respondents may kindly be directed to treat the petitioner’s candidature being as “ST, divorcee Category” in TSP area for appointment on the post of Teacher (Level-I), in pursuant to the recruitment notification dated 16.12.2022 (Annexure-6). (ii) By an appropriate writ order or direction, the petitioner may be considered on the post of Teacher (Level-I) under the category “ST Divorcee Category” for TSP area with all consequential benefits, in pursuant to the recruitment notification dated 16.12.2022 (Annexure-6). (iii) Any other relief which the Hon’ble Court considers just and proper in the facts and

(2 of 4)

[2023:RJ-JD:42612]

[CW-12471/2023]

circumstances of the case may kindly be granted in favour of the petitioner. (iv) Costs of the writ petition may kindly be awarded to the petitioner.”

¶22

On a Court query, learned counsel for the petitioner contends that petitioner has not been granted any decree of divorce by the competent family court in accordance with law and she is relying on a divorce, which has taken place by customs followed in Meena community.

¶23

Learned counsel for the respondents relies on a judgment in the Secretary RPSC & Anr. v. Sangeeta Varhat & Anr.: D.B. Special Appeal (Writ) No.72/2022 , decided on 10.11.2022, whereby, in a similar controversy, the Division Bench of this Court has allowed the appeal filed by the State.

¶24

For ready reference, the relevant portion of judgment relied on by learned counsel for the respondents is reproduced hereinbelow:-

¶25

“Admittedly, the respondents submitted application seeking appointment on advertised posts against the seats reserved for divorcee candidates. The decree of divorce issued by competent court was not possessed by the petitioners on the cut off date. The appointment in the divorcee category has been claimed on the ground of having obtained customary divorce and non application of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 upon marriages and divorce amongst the members of Scheduled Tribe/Tribal Sub Plan communities.

¶26

We are of the considered opinion that the requirement of a decree of divorce for a female candidate to claim reservation against the reserved quota for divorcee women on the cut off

(3 of 4)

[2023:RJ-JD:42612]

[CW-12471/2023]

date/on the last date of submitting application form is sine qua non and the candidature cannot be considered against said category in the absence of decree of divorce issued by the competent court. A custom cannot be allowed to supersede the terms and conditions governing the recruitment process. The terms and conditions of recruitment are framed to adhere to the mandate enshrined under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India which guarantee equal opportunities to all citizens for their advancement in the matter of employment.

¶31

Candidates belonging to Scheduled Tribe/Tribal Sub Plan are not precluded from obtaining decree of divorce from the competent court having jurisdiction to decide the matrimonial disputes. Exemption from presenting decree of divorce, issued by competent court cannot be sought on the ground of customs prevalent in their communities. The customs/practices prevailing in a particular community cannot be allowed to supplement the terms and conditions of a recruitment process involving large number of candidates belonging to various caste, religion, faith and communities.

¶32

In view of aforesaid discussion, the judgment passed in the case of Sunita Meena (supra) is held per incuriam since, the judgment was rendered in ignorance of previous decisions of Hon’ble the Apex Court and co-ordinate Bench of this Court on the controversy dealing with the cut off date by reference to which eligibility requirements must be satisfied by a candidate seeking public employment.

¶33

In the result, the intra court appeals succeed and are hereby allowed. The order/judgment

(4 of 4)

[2023:RJ-JD:42612]

[CW-12471/2023]

dated 12.9.2019 and 30.03.2021 under present appeals are set aside.

¶38

No order as to costs.”

¶39

Being so, I find no ground to grant any indulgence under extraordinary jurisdiction of writ jurisdiction.

¶40

The petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to seek the benefit of being a divorcee as and when her marriage is dissolved by way of granting a divorce decree in accordance with law.

¶41

(ARUN MONGA),J

¶42

7-Sumit/-

Manjula Meena v. Rajasthan Staff Selection Board

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manjula Meena v. Rajasthan Staff Selection Board

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

Dr. Rakshit Ameta Vs Mohan Lal Sukhadia University and Anr.

Miss Renu Sahdev Vs State and Anr.

Jora Ram Vs the State of Rajasthan

Mangee Lal Vs State of Rajasthan

Rama Ram Vs State of Rajasthan

Aaraj Sharma Vs Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd.