ORDER : PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI, J. This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been preferred with the following prayers:— “(i) the respondent commission may kindly be directed to consider and recommend the name of the petitioner for appointment on the post of Lecturer (School Education), Political Science in pursuance of the advertisement dated 16.10.2015 (Ann.3) in the category of divorcee. (ii) The respondent State may kindly be directed to appoint the petitioner on the post of Lecturer (School Education), Political Science in pursuance of the advertisement dated 16.10.2015 (Annx.3) with all consequential and notional benefits. (iii) Any other relief which this Hon'ble Court deems just and proper in favour of the petitioner, may kindly be granted and. (iv) The cost of the writ petition be allowed in favour of the petitioner.” 2. Brief facts of this case, as noticed by this Court, are that the petitioner got married on 30.11.2012 with one Shri Vinod Morya. The marriage did not work out and resulted into a divorce between the parties on 19.08.2014 The respondents conducted a selection exercise for the post of Lecturer (School Education) in various Subjects by advertisement dated 16.10.2015 and the petitioner participated in the said selection process as an aspirant for the post of Lecturer (School Education) in the Subject of Political Science in the divorcee category. 3. Subsequently, the petitioner got re-married on 04.02.2016, which was much ahead of the aforementioned advertisement as well as filling of her application form for the recruitment process. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the precedent law, which was upheld by the Division Bench of this Hon'ble Court at Principal Seat, Jodhpur in State of Rajasthan v. Jagdish Prasad (D.B Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No. 611/2016 decided on 09.09.2016) and by the Division Bench of this Hon'ble Court at Jaipur Bench in State of Rajasthan v. Rashmi Agrawal (D.B Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No. 247/2017 decided on 18.04.2017). The operative portions of both the orders passed by the Division Benches of this Hon'ble Court read as under:— D.B Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No. 611/2016: “In 1995 Supp (1) SCC 188 (Gurdeep Singh v. State of J&K) the respondent was not eligible to be considered for the sports quota as “mountaineering” was not included in the schedule of sports but came to be so done subsequently after the last date for submission of applications. It was held that he was ineligible to be considered observing as follows:— “7….The real question was rather that such a sport not having been included in the list of approved sports at the cut-off date when the applications were invited and on the basis of which candidates responded, could not later be introduced to provide eligibility retrospectively to a single candidate…..” It is not considered necessary to burden the present order with repeated precedents on the issue in view of (2013) 11 SCC 58 (Rakesh Kumar Sharma v. state (NCT of Delhi) which after considering a plethora of precedents has observed as follows:— “11. There can be no dispute to the settled legal proposition that the selection process commences on the date when applications are invited. Any person eligible on the last date of submission of the application has a right to be considered against the said vacancy provided he fulfils the requisite qualification. 22. It also needs to be noted that like the present appellant there could be large number of candidates who were not eligible as per the requirement of rules/advertisement since they did not possess the required eligibility on the last date of submission of the application forms. Granting any benefit to the appellant would be violative of the doctrine of equality, a backbone of the fundamental rights under our Constitution. A large number of such candidates may not have applied considering themselves to be ineligible adhering to the statutory rules and the terms of the advertisement.” The advertisement did not provide for any relaxation. In the circumstances any relaxation to the respondent alone would itself be violative of Article 14 of the Constitution suffering from the vice of arbitrariness and discrimination denying similar benefit to others who could also have made requests for change of category had they been made aware that it was so permissible even after the last date for submission of applications. An individual benefit to the respondent would make justice individualised which again would be anathema to the law and the Constitution. In (1994) 2 SCC 723 U.P Public Service Commission, U.P v. Alpana) the respondent acquired the eligibility qualification after the last date for submission of applications as the results of the examination was published thereafter. The High Court directed her to be called for interview. In (1994) 2 SCC 723 U.P Public Service Commission, U.P v. Alpana) the respondent acquired the eligibility qualification after the last date for submission of applications as the results of the examination was published thereafter. The High Court directed her to be called for interview. Disapproving of the same it was observed:— “6……This approach of the High Court cannot be supported on any rule or prevalent practice nor can it be supported on equitable considerations. In fact there was no occasion for the High Court to interfere with the refusal of the Public Service Commission to interview her in the absence of any specific rule in that behalf. We find it difficult to give recognition to such an approach of the High Court as that would open up a flood of litigation. Many candidates superior to the respondent in merit may not have applied as the result of the examination was not declared before the last date for receipt of applications. If once such an approach is recognised there would be several applications received from such candidates not eligible to apply and that would not only increase avoidable work of the selecting authorities but would also increase the pressure on such authorities to withhold interviews till the results are declared, thereby causing avoidable administrative difficulties. This would also leave vacancies unfilled for long spells of time. We, therefore, find it difficult to uphold the view of the High Court impugned in this appeal.” In Jamna Rajpurohit (supra) significantly the Division Bench itself observed that permitting change of category after the last date for submission of applications would make the selections an unending process and yet proceeded to direct it to be done on basis of sympathy. Jamna Rajpurohit (supra) has therefore to be held as per incuriam. The order under appeal based upon the same is also held to be unsustainable. Delay of 86 days in preferring the appeal is condoned. The appeal is allowed.” D.B Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No. 247/2017:” “1. 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 results were declared. Her entitlement for appointment under the divorcee quota has rightly been upheld. 2. 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 results were declared. Her entitlement for appointment under the divorcee quota has rightly been upheld. 2. The writ-appeal is dismissed. The stay application also stands dismissed. 3. No costs.” 5. Learned counsel for the respondents opposed the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner. 6. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record of the case along with the afore quoted judgments, this Court is of the opinion that on the last date of submission of the application form, the petitioner had submitted her application in the divorcee category, as she had obtained the divorce decree on 19.08.2014 Therefore, any subsequent marriage of the petitioner on 04.02.2016 cannot have any retrospective effect upon the category of the petitioner. In fact, re-marriage is a prospect, which has to be strengthened to ensure that roots of the society remain healthy, and therefore, any candidate, who is in the category of divorcee or widow at the time of submission of the application form, cannot be discouraged so as to remain in the same status, and in fact, it is the duty of the State to encourage those candidates to remarry as soon as possible, so as to settle the persons concerned. 7. In light of the afore quoted judgments as well as the aforesaid observations, the present writ petition is allowed and the respondents are directed to consider the candidature of the petitioner in the divorcee category, and if found in merit and otherwise eligible, then she shall be given appointment on the post of Lecturer (School Education) in the Subject of Political Science. Such consideration shall be made within a period of thirty days from today. The stay application also stands disposed of.