Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Jahira Bano Rizvi vs State Of Rajasthan (2023:Rj-Jd:29793) on 14 September, 2023
Author: Arun Bhansali
Bench: Arun Bhansali
[2023:RJ-JD:29793]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10373/2023
Jahira Bano Rizvi D/o Mehboob Ali, Aged About 43 Years, 154
Takiya Talhati, Merta City, Nagaur, Rajasthan.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Principal Secretary,
Panchayati Raj Department, Govt. Of Rajasthan,
Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. The Chairman, Rajasthan Staff Selection Board, Jaipur,
State Agriculture Management Institute Campus,
Durgapura, Jaipur, 302018
3. The District Education Officer (Primary Education),
Nagaur, Rajasthan.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Parvez Khan Moyal.
For Respondent(s) :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN BHANSALI
Order 14/09/2023
1. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking a direction to the respondents to treat her a candidate of OBC- Female-Divorcee category and appoint her on the post of Teacher Gr.III (Level 1 Class 1 to 5) pursuant to the advertisement dated 16/12/2022.
2. Submissions have been made that the petitioner filed on-line application (Annex.2) and claimed her status as a divorcee. The respondents during the course of document verification insisted for producing a decree of divorce, however, as the petitioner is a Muslim woman and was divorced way back on 18/6/2007 by way of oral Talak, the demand of producing the decree of divorce was not justified.
(Downloaded on 12/11/2023 at 05:56:39 AM) [2023:RJ-JD:29793] (2 of 4) [CW-10373/2023]
3. Submissions have been made that the divorce of the petitioner is supported by the statement of her husband (Annex.7), affidavit of Kazi (Annex.8) and the declaration given by the Family Court dated 13/7/2023 (Annex.10) and, therefore, denial by the respondents in this regard is not justified.
4. Reliance has been placed on Anjum Banu vs. State of Rajasthan : S.B.Civil Writ Petition No. 1649/2019 decided on 30/10/2019, Tarannum Khan vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. :
S.B.Civil Writ Petition No. 16853/2015 decided on 21/4/2017, Seema Khan vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr. : S.B.Civil Writ Petition No. 14298/2019 decided on 9/5/2022, Madina Bano vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr. : S.B.Civil Writ Petition No. 8678/2018 decided on 4/7/2019 upheld in State of Rajasthan & Anr. vs. Madina Bano : D.B.Spl. Appeal Writ No. 1542/2019 decided on 7/1/2020 and Seema Nasib vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. : S.B.Civil Writ Petition No. 9156/2005 decided on 26/3/2008.
5. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner and have perused the material available on record.
6. The plea raised by the petitioner based on the fact that her husband purportedly gave her divorce on 18/6/2007 by way of oral Talak is essentially negated by her own document, at least her stand has been contrary to the claim made, inasmuch as from the document produced as Annex.7, it appears that the petitioner apparently initiated certain criminal proceedings against her husband, which counsel for the petitioner submitted were under Section 498A IPC, which were registered as State vs. Akram being case no. 114/2012, wherein, husband relied on the fact of divorce (Downloaded on 12/11/2023 at 05:56:39 AM) [2023:RJ-JD:29793] (3 of 4) [CW-10373/2023] and denied his having harassed the petitioner for dowry. In cross examination he denied that the petitioner was his wife and the letter which was sent indicating divorce was not received by the petitioner.
7. In case the plea raised by the petitioner regarding having been divorced on 18/6/2007 is correct, there was no reason for her to initiate proceedings in the year 2012 under Section 498A IPC and the statements of her husband to be recorded on 28/3/2014.
8. Further, apparently, except for the affidavit of one Kazi, Mohd. Ziya, and her own affidavit, no material in support of the divorce was produced at the time of document verification.
9. Admittedly, the declaration of dissolution of marriage (Annex.10) by the Family Court is dated 13/7/2023 i.e. much after the date of document verification.
10. In that view of the matter, besides the fact that by her own conduct reflected from Annex.7, the plea of divorce in the year 2007, is belied, no material was produced by the petitioner evidencing her divorce at the time of document verification and as such the rejection of her candidature as divorcee cannot be faulted.
11. In the judgments cited by learned counsel for the petitioner, there were Talaknama etc. produced by the parties at the time of document verification and as such, for lack of any document evidencing divorce at the time of document verification, the said judgments have no application.
12. In view of the above discussion, the plea sought to be raised by the petitioner seeking to claim herself divorcee, based on the (Downloaded on 12/11/2023 at 05:56:39 AM) [2023:RJ-JD:29793] (4 of 4) [CW-10373/2023] averments contained in the petition, cannot be countenanced. The petition has no substance and the same is, therefore, dismissed.
(ARUN BHANSALI),J 388-baweja/-
(Downloaded on 12/11/2023 at 05:56:39 AM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)