Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 2449 (RAJ)

Lalita Charpota v. State of Rajasthan

2019-09-12

ARUN BHANSALI

body2019
JUDGMENT Arun Bhansali, J. - This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking a direction to the respondents to appoint the petitioner as School Lecturer in subject-Geography (TSP-ST) by treating her to be a divorcee woman with all consequential benefits. 2. It is, inter alia, indicated in the writ petition that the petitioner had by way of custom, dissolved the marriage with her husband on 05.03.2014. The petitioner applied for the post of School Lecturer and indicated her category as divorcee in the application filed on 29.11.2015. The petitioner obtained higher marks than the cut-off meant for divorcee woman and her name appeared in the list of selected candidates, however, after her documents were verified, on account of the fact that the petitioner was not in possession of a decree of divorce on the last date of filing application, her name was not included in the counseling list. 3. It is submitted that the petitioner had filed proceedings before the Civil Judge & Judicial Magistrate, Banswara seeking dissolution of her marriage, wherein the competent Civil Court based on the agreement dated 05.03.2014, has granted the decree and, therefore, the petitioner having already obtained divorce on 05.03.2014, is entitled to be treated as divorcee and grant of relief in this regard. 4. Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that in the advertisement, it is specifically indicated that the divorcee would be required to produce decree of divorce for seeking benefit and, therefore, the petitioner having obtained the decree after the cutoff date is not entitled for grant of any relief. 5. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the material available on record. 6. The Civil Court while granting the decree, inter alia, observed as under:- 7. A perusal of the above order indicates that the divorce has been granted based on the agreement between the parties on 05.03.2014. 8. 5. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the material available on record. 6. The Civil Court while granting the decree, inter alia, observed as under:- 7. A perusal of the above order indicates that the divorce has been granted based on the agreement between the parties on 05.03.2014. 8. This Court in Sunita Meena v. State of Rajasthan & Ors.: SBCW No. 3991/2015, decided on 17.01.2017 at Jaipur Bench, inter alia, directed as under:- "In the circumstances, I am of the considered view, as also taken by this Court in the case of Durga Lal Meena (supra), that despite the dismissal of the petitioner's suit for declaration of her marriage having been dissolved by the Family Court No.1, Jaipur vide order dated 29.07.2010, the petitioner should be allowed to lay a similar suit afresh before the jurisdictional Family Court seeking a declaration of her marriage to Ramphool Meena having been dissolved on 11.05.2008. This direction can also be sustained for the reason that the dismissal of the petitioner's earlier suit by the Family Court vide its order dated 29.07.2010 for purported lack of jurisdiction was contrary to law and the Family Court had wrongly failed to exercise the jurisdiction vested in it under Sections 7 & 8 of the Act of 1984. It is directed that in the event of the petitioner filing such a suit before the Family Court No.1, Jaipur, it shall take all requisite steps for deciding it expeditiously and in any event within a period of three months from the date of service on the defendant. It is directed that in the event of non appearance of the petitioner's ex-husband, despite service of notice in the petitioner's suit the Family Court's satisfaction of summons having been served, it shall proceed exparte. The facts of the case also require this Court to invoke its extraordinary equitable jurisdiction to save, in the meantime the petitioner's selection as a Senior Teacher Grade-II (Secondary Education) in the subject of Social Science following the competitive Examination 2011 for a period of 6 months from today. It is consequently directed that RPSC's order dated 18.02.2015 cancelling the petitioner's selection shall beheld in abeyance for the aforesaid period. One post of Senior Teacher GradeII (Secondary Education) shall be kept vacant for the duration. It is consequently directed that RPSC's order dated 18.02.2015 cancelling the petitioner's selection shall beheld in abeyance for the aforesaid period. One post of Senior Teacher GradeII (Secondary Education) shall be kept vacant for the duration. In the event the petitioner is able to obtain a declaration from the Family Court of her marriage having been dissolved on 11.05.2008 within a period of the aforesaid 6 months from today, she shall be appointed to the post of Senior Teacher Grade-II (Secondary Education) on her satisfying all other requisite conditions." 9. The said Judgment of Sunita Meena (supra) was upheld by the Division Bench in RPSC v. Sunita Meena & Ors.: SBCW No.829/2017, decided on 14.07.2017 by observing as under:- "After we have heard counsel for the appellant Sh. Nitin Jain Adv., and going through the order impugned of the Ld. Single Judge dt. 17-1-2017 we find no error being committed which may call for our interference." 10. And the said judgment has been followed by this Court in Meenakshi Koted v. State of Raj. & Ors.: SBCW No.15594/2018, decided on 06.10.2018. 11. In view of the law laid down in the case of Sunita Meena (supra) upheld by the Division Bench and the fact that the petitioner has been granted divorce based on the agreement dated 05.03.2014 by the Civil Court, the petitioner can well be recognized as a divorcee from the said date and would be entitled to apply as a divorcee and, therefore, the action of the respondents in not including the name of the petitioner for counseling purpose, cannot be sustained. 12. It may be noticed that by interim order dated 24.07.2017 one post of Lecturer (Geography) was ordered to be kept vacant. 13. Consequently, the writ petition filed by the petitioner is allowed. The action of the respondents in not including the name of the petitioner in the counseling list and subsequent process, is quashed and set aside. The respondents are directed to accord her appointment from the date candidates lower in merit were granted appointment, if she is otherwise eligible. The petitioner would be entitled to all consequential benefits except the monetary benefits, which would be accorded to the petitioner from the date of appointment. 14. No order as to costs.