Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 507 (RAJ)

Mohammed Imran Bhati v. State of Rajasthan

2023-02-14

ARUN BHANSALI

body2023
ORDER 1. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking a direction to the respondents to accept the application form of the petitioner for the post of Nursing Officer pursuant to the advertisement dated 16.11.2022. 2. Submissions have been made that the petitioner is embroiled in a matrimonial dispute with his wife. On account of the said dispute, it is not possible for the petitioner to obtain Marriage Registration Certificate, which has been made mandatory by the respondents for the purpose of filing of the offline application. 3. Submissions have been made that as soon as the petitioner indicates his status as married, it is compulsory for him to upload the marriage certificate online, otherwise the application is not accepted and, therefore, on account of the pending dispute i.e. lodging of the FIR by his wife against the petitioner and pendency of criminal proceedings, the respondents be directed to accept the application form of the petitioner offline and/or by any other mechanism. 4. Learned counsel for the State made submissions that as the application form requires uploading of the application certificate in view of the circular of the State dated 22.5.2006, it is incumbent of the petitioner to file the said registration certificate and, therefore, the petition is liable to be dismissed. 5. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the material available on record. 6. A coordinate Bench of this Court in Kartik Tak Vs. The State of Rajasthan & Ors. : SBCWP No. 687/2016, decided on 30.3.2016, after taking into consideration the circular dated 22.5.2006 and the Rajasthan Compulsory Registration of Marriages Act, 2009, came to the conclusion that an affidavit from the petitioner in this regard, would fulfill the requirements of the directions in this regard and, therefore, the petitioner is entitled to the similar relief. 7. The Court in the case of Kartik Tak (supra), inter alia, observed as under:- 'It is undisputed that the petitioner is embroiled in a matrimonial dispute with his wife. Thus expecting the petitioner's wife to associate with him for getting the marriage registered is virtually impossible. During the verification process, the petitioner has already furnished an affidavit affirming that he is married to Smt. Anita. Thus expecting the petitioner's wife to associate with him for getting the marriage registered is virtually impossible. During the verification process, the petitioner has already furnished an affidavit affirming that he is married to Smt. Anita. He has also mentioned in the affidavit that he is facing a prosecution for the offences under Sections 498-A, 406, 323 and 377 of the IPC pursuant to an FIR filed by his wife against him. Therefore, the purpose of the directions given by the Hon'ble Surpeme Court in Smt. Seema's case stands served by the petitioner's affidavit. The petitioner can be required to furnish an undertaking before joining that as soon as his matrimonial dispute is settled, he shall have the marriage registered and place the certificate on his service record. However, keeping in view the ratio laid down by the learned Single Bench of this Court in the case of Suraj Mal Jat (supra), this Court is of the firm opinion that the respondents cannot deny appointment and joining permission to the petitioner on the post of Laboratory Assistant in the questioned selection process merely because he failed to produce the marriage registration certificate. As a consequence of the above discussion, the writ petition deserves to be and is hereby allowed. The respondent authorities are directed to accept the petitioner's affidavit and undertaking in the above terms and allow him to join on the post of Laboratory Assistant in the questioned recruitment process as per his position in the select list. Stay application stands disposed of. No order as to costs'. 8. In view of the above, the petition filed by the petitioner is allowed. On fulfilling the requirements as indicated in the above judgment in the case of Kartik Tak (supra), the respondents are directed to accept the application form from the petitioner for the post of Nursing Officer pursuant to the notification dated 16.11.2022. 9. The respondents would either provide a mechanism for petitioner to make an online application and inform the petitioner in this regard or accept offline application of the petitioner, as may be decided by the respondents and informed to the petitioner.