Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 2416 (RAJ)

Nasim Banu v. State Of Rajasthan

2022-09-12

ARUN BHANSALI

body2022
JUDGMENT Arun Bhansali, J. - This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner aggrieved against the final list of selected candidates dated 7.3.2022 (Annex. 7) issued by respondent No. 7 for recruitment on the post of Agriculture Supervisor. 2. Pursuant to the advertisement dated 26.8.2021 (Annex. 1), the petitioner applied in the category of OBC (Non-Creamylayer) and claimed her marital status as divorcee. After declaration of the result, the petitioner was called for document verification, wherein, the petitioner appeared, however, in the list of selected candidates published on 7.3.2022 (Annex. 7), the roll number of the petitioner did not appear though the marks of the petitioner in the category of General (Divorcee) were higher than the cut-off. 3. Feeling aggrieved, the present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner. 4. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that action of the respondents in not treating the petitioner in the category of divorcee is not justified, inasmuch as, the petitioner belongs to the Muslim community and that she has been given divorce by her husband on 17.3.2017 and though the petitioner produced an affidavit (Annex. 5) at the time of document verification, the said aspect has been ignored, which action of the respondents is contrary to the law laid down by this Court in State of Rajasthan v. Mst. Shameem Akhtar: 1998 (1) RLW Raj. 111 and, therefore, the action of the respondents in this regard deserves to be set aside and the respondents be directed to accord appointment to the petitioner as Agricultural Supervisor. 5. Learned counsel for the respondent - Board made submissions that the petitioner could not have relied on the affidavit produced by her claiming her status as divorcee, inasmuch as, the said affidavit was not supported by any valid document indicating the grant of divorce to the petitioner. 6. Further submissions have been made that the advertisement required passing of a decree by a competent court, which was clearly missing and, therefore, the rejection of petitioner's candidature cannot be faulted. 7. During course of submissions, when it was pointed out by learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner had applied for grant of decree of divorcee in the year 2019, the petitioner was directed to produce material in this regard. 7. During course of submissions, when it was pointed out by learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner had applied for grant of decree of divorcee in the year 2019, the petitioner was directed to produce material in this regard. Pursuant thereto, an additional affidavit has been filed sworn on 14.8.2022 by the petitioner along with decree of divorce dated 14.3.2022 and a compromise of the same date dated 14.3.2022. 8. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the material available on record. 9. The claim of the petitioner in the document and additional affidavit filed was that she was granted divorce on 17.3.2017 and in terms of the judgment in the case of Shameem Akhtar (supra), her making of the said indication in this regard was sufficient. In case, the petitioner would have stuck to the said aspect, things would have been different, however, the additional affidavit filed by the petitioner along with documents clearly reflects the claim of the petitioner, is baseless. 10. In case, the petitioner would have stuck to the said aspect, things would have been different, however, the additional affidavit filed by the petitioner along with documents clearly reflects the claim of the petitioner, is baseless. 10. In the pending suit seeking dissolution of marriage, the compromise filed by the parties inter alia reads as under:- jkthukek egksn; th] i{kdkjku dh vksj ls fuEu jkthukek izLrqr dj lknj fuosnu gSa fd% 1- ;g fd i{kdkjku dk ijLij fudkg fnukad 6@05@2015 dks rRdkfyu lnj dkfu;k] rglhy fct;uxj] ftyk vtesj ds lSDsVjh ds le{k nks xokgku ,oa odhyksa dh ekStqnxh esa eqfLye jhfr fjoktksa ds vuqlkj lEiUu gqvk rc ls gh i{kdkjku vkil esa ifr&iRuh gSa vkSj eqfLye gksdj eqfLye fof/k ls 'kkflr gSaA 2- ;g fd fookg@fudkg ds i'pkr oknh;k izfroknh ds ;gka xbZ ,oa nkEiR; thou dk fuokZg fd;k ysfdu i{kdkjku ds e/; oSpkfjd erHksn mRiUu gks x;s vkSj i{kdkjku foxr 04 o"kksZ ls vyx vyx fuokl dj jgs gSa vkSj lekt ds ekSrchj O;fDr;ksa dh le>kbZ'k ls ,oa yksd vnkyr dh Hkkouk ls izsfjr gksdj i{kdkjku us vkilh lgefr ls@jkthukek ds vk/kkj ij fookg@fudkg dks foPNsn dk fu.kZ; fy;k gSaA 3- ;g fd i{kdkjku ds e/; Hkfo"; esa lkFk jgdj ifr iRuh ds :i esa nkEiR; vf/kdkjksa ,oa drZO;ksa dk ikyu djus dh dksbZ lEHkkouk ugha jgh gSa rFkk i{kdkjku ds e/; Hkj.k&iks"k.k jkf'k dks ysdj vc dksbZ fookn 'ks"k ugha jgk gS bl dkj.k fnukad 06@05@2015 dks gq;s fudkg dks fo?kfVr dj fudkg foPNsn dh fMØh ikfjr fd;k tkuk U;k;ksfpr gSA vr% Jheku~ ls fuosnu gS fd jkthukek rLnhd Qjek i{kdkjku ds e/; fnukad 06@05@2015 dks gq, fudkg@fookg fo?kfVr dj fookg foPNsn dh fMØh ikfjr Qjek;h tkosA fnukad 14@03@2022 LFkku%+& xqykciqjk gLrk{kj i{kdkjku 11. Based on the said compromise, the competent court has granted the decree, which reads as under:- mHk; i{kdkjku ds e/; yksd vnkyr dh Hkkouk ls jkthukek gks pqdk gSA mHk; i{kdkjku us jkthukek ds vk/kkj ij fookg@fudkg dks foPNsn djus dk fu.kZ; fy;k gSA jkthukek e; leLr nLrkost fMØh dk Hkkx le>k tkosaA 12. Based on the said compromise, the competent court has granted the decree, which reads as under:- mHk; i{kdkjku ds e/; yksd vnkyr dh Hkkouk ls jkthukek gks pqdk gSA mHk; i{kdkjku us jkthukek ds vk/kkj ij fookg@fudkg dks foPNsn djus dk fu.kZ; fy;k gSA jkthukek e; leLr nLrkost fMØh dk Hkkx le>k tkosaA 12. A perusal of the above compromise would reveal that on 14.3.2022, the petitioner and her husband have indicated that they were husband wife, they were living separately for 4 years and on account of the compromise arrived at between the parties, they have decided to dissolve their marriage, based on which, it was prayed that marriage solemnized between them on 15.5.2015, be dissolved. Based on which, the decree, as quoted hereinbefore, was passed by the competent court on 14.3.2022. 13. The above compromise and the decree clearly reflects that the marriage of the petitioner with her husband came to be dissolved by the decree dated 14.3.2022 and the claim made by the petitioner to the contrary regarding the dissolution having taken place on 17.3.2017 on face of documents produced/quoted hereinbefore, cannot be countenanced as until date of making application/the last date of making application pursuant to the advertisement dated 26.8.2021, it cannot be said that the petitioner was a divorcee as claimed by the petitioner, therefore, her status has rightly been rejected by the respondents and the same does not call for any interference. 14. There is no substance in the writ petition. The same is, therefore, dismissed.