Honble YADAV, J.–The present revision petition is listed today for disposal of the stay application. It is conceded by learned counsel for the parties that time which is likely to be taken in disposing of the stay application, within the same time the revision petition itself can be disposed off on merits. In view of aforesaid submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, I proposed to decide the pre- sent revision petition itself on merits. (2). The instant revision petition stems from an order dated 15.3.97 passed by learned Additional District Judge, No.1, Bhilwara in Civil Misc. Appeal No. 36 of 1996, whereby he has confirmed the order of temporary injunction dated 19.3.96 passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division)-cum-Judicial Magistrate (West), Bhilwara in Civil Misc. Case No. 126 of 1995. (3). Brief facts giving rise to the present revision are that non-petitioner-plaintiff instituted a regular Civil Suit in the court of learned Civil Judge (Junior Division)-cum-Judicial Magistrate (West), Bhilwara and prayed for permanent injunction to consider and include her candidature as `divorced woman candidate for appoint- ment on the post of Teacher Grade III. (4). It is borne out from the record that petitioner No.2- Director, Primary and Secondary Education, Rajasthan, Bikaner invited applications for direct recruitment on the post of Teacher Gr.III and advertisement in this regard was published in the daily newspaper ``Rajasthan Patrika. In response to the said advertisement, the non-petitioner-plaintiff offered her candidature and claimed herself to be considered against the quota ear-marked for `divorced women candidates. It is also alleged by her that her candidature for recruitment to the post of Teacher Gr.III was not considered by respondent as a divorced woman candidate illegally and arbitrarily. (5). From the perusal of averments made in the plaint as well as in the application moved under O.39, Rr. 1 and 2, CPC it is revealed that non-petitioner-plaintiff has alleged that according to Muslim rites by repeating the word ``Talak thrice the divorce is complete without intervention of a court and after such talak under Mohemadan Law, divorced woman cannot re-marry with the same person unless she is married with third person and marriage is consumated and again divorced by such third person. According to her, she is lawfully divorced woman candidate, therefore, she is entitled to be considered against the post earmarked for divorced woman candidates. According to her, she is lawfully divorced woman candidate, therefore, she is entitled to be considered against the post earmarked for divorced woman candidates. It is also alleged by her that all divorced women candidates were called for interview on 31.5.95 but in the merit list her name was not included. It is also averred that upon enquiry, it is found that she was not treated as a divorced woman candidate as she did not produce a decree of divorce from a competent court of law. (6). It is pertinent to mention here that along with the Civil Suit, she also moved an application for grant of temporary injunction under O.39, Rr. 1 and 2, CPC and prayed that defendant-petitioners may be restrained from making any appointment on the post of Teacher Gr.III out of merit list without including her name in the merit list as a divorced woman. She also prayed that defendant-petitioners may be direc- ted to treat her as a lawfully divorced woman candidate and her name be included in Schedule `A meant for divorced women candidates for appointment on the post of Teacher Gr.III. (7). The defendant-petitioners filed a detailed reply and it was averred in their reply that the non-petitioner-plaintiff does not fulfil the requisite condition of eligi- bility so as to treat her as a divorced women candidate. It is also averred that as per prescribed procedure in the advertisement only those women candidates are treated to be eligibile for appointment against the qouta earmarked for divorced women candidates who had obtained a decree of divorce from courts. It is admitted in their reply that non-petitioner-plaintiffs candidature as divorced woman was rejected as she failed to produce a decree of divorce granted by a competent court established by law. (8). I have heard learned counsel for the parties. (9). Perused the material available on record. (10). It is contended by learned counsel for the defendant- petitioners Mr. M.R. Singhvi that as per advertisement published in the daily newspaper ``Rajasthan Patrika, inviting applications contained a specific condition of eligibility to the effect that a divorced woman candidate should produce a decree for divorce granted by a competent court of law. According to Mr. (10). It is contended by learned counsel for the defendant- petitioners Mr. M.R. Singhvi that as per advertisement published in the daily newspaper ``Rajasthan Patrika, inviting applications contained a specific condition of eligibility to the effect that a divorced woman candidate should produce a decree for divorce granted by a competent court of law. According to Mr. Singhvi, in the present case, admittedly the non-petitioner- plaintiff did not produce a decree of divorce passed by a competent court of law, therefore, the question of inclusion of her name in Schedule `A meant for divorced women candidates for appointment on the post of Teacher Gr.III does not arise. It is further submitted by Mr. Singhvi that in view of aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, learned courts below have illegally arrived at a conclusion that the non-petitioner-plaintiff has successfully established a prima facie case in her favour for grant of temporary injunction under O.39, Rr. 1 and 2, CPC. (11). In reply, it is urged by learned counsel for the plaintiff- respondent that under Mahomedan Law, the concept of marriage is not a sacrament but it is a mere contract which can be dissolved either by `Talak or by `Khula or by `Mubara at. It is alleged that under the Mohomedan Law, a divorce can also be granted by a judicial decree at the suit of the husband or wife, as the case may be. (12). I have given my thoughtful anxious consideration to the rival contentions raised at the Bar. (13). I am of the view that under Mahomedan Law, a contract of marriage can be dissolved by husband at his will, without intervention of a court. It can also be dissolved by mutual consent of the husband and wife, as the case may be, without the intervention of a court. It is true that a contract of marriage under Mohamedan Law can also be dissolved by a judicial decree at the suit of the husband or wife. (14). It is to be imbibed that when the divorce proceeds from the husband, it is called `Talak. The Talak may be effected orally by spoken words or by a written document called ``Talaknama. When it is effected by mutual consent, it is called `Khula or `Mubara at. (14). It is to be imbibed that when the divorce proceeds from the husband, it is called `Talak. The Talak may be effected orally by spoken words or by a written document called ``Talaknama. When it is effected by mutual consent, it is called `Khula or `Mubara at. In the present case, other kind of divorce, obtainable by intervention of court, is not alleged by plaintiff- non-petitioner, therefore, it is left open to be decided in an appropriate case. (15). I confine my discussion with regard to `Talak only, as alleged by the plaintiff-non-petitioner and denied by the defendant-petitioners. According to the plaintiff-non-petitioner, a Muslim woman under the Mahomedan Law, can be said to be a divorced woman when her husband at his will dissolved the marriage orallyby spoken words- ``Talak thrice. The spoken words- `Talak, used thrice by the hus- band, is sufficient proof of divorce and it does not require intervention of the court. (16). I am of the view that so long under Article 44 of the Constitution uniform Civil Code is not enacted by Parliament for all citizens through out the territory of India, the personal law of Muslim community under Mahomedan Law shall conti- nue to occupy the field of divorce amongst Muslim community and mode of Talak by husband of a Muslim woman at his will without the intervention of court shall be treated to be a valid `Talak. To my mind the object of Article 44 of the Constitution is to effect an integration of India by bringing all communities on the common platform on matters which are at present governed by diverse personal laws relating to divorce. (17). I am conscious of the fact that mere mentioning in the application that the plaintiff-non-petitioner is a Muslim divorced woman, would not be sufficient. Wherever and whenever a Muslim woman claims herself to be a divorced Muslim woman by way of talak, which can be effected orally or in writing, she is required to file Notary Affidavit in support thereof. If it is alleged that Talak has been effected orally by spoken words then Notary Affidavit would be sufficient. If it is effected by written document, she would be required to file `Talaknama alongwith Notary Affidavit. (18). It is not disputed in the present case before me that plaintiff-non-peti- tioner has produced an affidavit along with Talaknama. If it is alleged that Talak has been effected orally by spoken words then Notary Affidavit would be sufficient. If it is effected by written document, she would be required to file `Talaknama alongwith Notary Affidavit. (18). It is not disputed in the present case before me that plaintiff-non-peti- tioner has produced an affidavit along with Talaknama. In such a situation, the defendant-petitioners are not entitled to insist upon to produce a decree of divorce from a court. The act of the defendant-petitioners in the present case, demanding from the plaintiff-non-petitioner to produce a decree of divorce from a court toinclude her name in Schedule `A meant for divorced women candidates for appoint- appointment on the post of Teacher Gr.III so as to fulfil the eligibility criteria according to advertisement published in daily newspaper ``Rajasthan Patrika, is impermissible within the meaning of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. The demand of a decree of divorce from a court from the non-petitioner-plaintiff to include her name in Schedule `A meant for divorced woman candidates for her appointment on the post of Teacher Gr.III amounts to denial of equal opportunity for all citizens similarly circumstanced in matters relating to employment. (19). It is urged by learned counsel for the defendant- petitioners Shri Singhvi that in order to avoid misuse of reservation meant for Muslim divorced woman on the posts of Teacher Gr.III, on basis of `Talak, some safe-guards may be evolved by this Court. (20). Suffice is to say in this regard that safe guards suggested by this Court in preceding paragraphs of the judgment should be treated to be sufficient. In abundant caution, it is further observed that if State has some creditable information to the effect that a Muslim woman has obtained an employment in services of the State, mis-representing herself to be a divorced woman, then in such a situation State would be free to hold an enquiry and after giving an opportunity of hearing to her, would be at liberty to proceed against her in accordance with law. (21). In view of what has been stated above, the present revision petition lacks merit and it is dismissed. The order passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Divi- sion)-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Bhilwara, granting temporary injunction under O.39, Rr. (21). In view of what has been stated above, the present revision petition lacks merit and it is dismissed. The order passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Divi- sion)-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Bhilwara, granting temporary injunction under O.39, Rr. 1 and 2, CPC on 19.3.96 and the order dated 15.3.97 passed by learned Additional District Judge, No.1, Bhilwara, affirming the same, are hereby confirmed. Costs are made easy. (22). After dictation of the judgment, learned members of the Bar present in Court made a request to make this judgment `Reportable. Request is allowed and the judgment is marked `Reportable.