Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Priya Vyas vs State Of Rajasthan on 18 January, 2021
Author: Dinesh Mehta
Bench: Dinesh Mehta
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR (1) S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7712/2020 Priya Vyas D/o Shri Kailahs Vyas, Aged About 26 Years, R/o Near Gandhi Murti, Talwara, District Banswara, Rajasthan.
----Petitioner Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, Department Of Agriculture, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. The Commissioner, Agriculture Directorate, Rajasthan, Jaipur.
3. The Joint Director, Agriculture Directorate, Rajasthan, Jaipur.
4. The Chairman, Rajasthan Subordinate And Ministerial Service Selection Board, Jaipur District Jaipur, Rajasthan.
5. The Secretary, Rajasthan Subordinate And Ministerial Service Selection Board, Jaipur, District Jaipur, Rajasthan.
----Respondents Connected With (2) S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8366/2020 Monika D/o Shri Rajender Singh, Aged About 29 Years, R/o Vpo Ninan, Tehsil Bhadra, District Hanumangarh, Rajasthan.
----Petitioner Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, Department Of Agriculture, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. The Director, Agriculture Directorate, Jaipur, District Jaipur, Rajasthan.
3. The Joint Director, Agriculture Directorate, Jaipur, District Jaipur, Rajasthan.
4. The Chairman, Rajasthan Subordinate And Ministerial Service Selection Board, Jaipur, District Jaipur, Rajasthan.
5. The Secretary, Rajasthan Subordinate And Ministerial Service Selection Board, Jaipur, District Jaipur, Rajasthan.
----Respondents
(Downloaded on 19/01/2021 at 08:52:54 PM)
(2 of 6) [CW-7712/2020]
(3) S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8701/2020 Sushila D/o Shri Dharmpal, Aged About 29 Years, R/o Vpo Ninan, Tehsil Bhadra, District Hanumangarh, Rajasthan.
----Petitioner Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, Department Of Agriculture, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. The Director, Agriculture Directorate, Jaipur, District Jaipur, Rajasthan.
3. The Joint Director, Agriculture Directorate, Jaipur, District Jaipur, Rajasthan.
4. The Chairmen, Rajasthan Subordinate And Ministerial Service Selection Board, Jaipur District Jaipur, Rajasthan.
5. The Secretary, Rajasthan Subordinate And Ministerial Service Selection Board, Jaipur District Jaipur, Rajasthan.
----Respondents (4) S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8573/2020 Monika Sharma D/o Shri Krishan Gopal Sharma, Aged About 29 Years, R/o Village Ganpatiya Khera, Post Sangari, Tehsil Phulia Kalan, District Bhilwara, Rajasthan.
----Petitioner Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, Department Of Agriculture, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. The Director, Agriculture Directorate, Jaipur District Jaipur, Rajasthan.
3. The Joint Director, Agriculture Directorate, Jaipur, District Jaipur, Rajasthan.
4. The Chairmen, Rajasthan Subordinate And Ministerial Service Selection Board, Jaipur District Jaipur, Rajasthan.
(Downloaded on 19/01/2021 at 08:52:54 PM)
(3 of 6) [CW-7712/2020]
5. The Secretary, Rajasthan Subordinate And Ministerial Service Selection Board, Jaipur District Jaipur, Rajasthan.
----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Kailash Jangid Ms. Yogita Choudhary For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vinit Sanadhya Mr. Manvendra Singh Mr. Mahesh Chandra Bishnoi JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA Order 18/01/2021
1. Petitioners herein have challenged action of the respondent - Selection Board, as they have not considered petitioners' candidature as divorcee' candidates.
2. For the sake of convenience, facts of S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.7712/2020 (Priya Vyas Vs. State & Ors.) are taken into account.
3. The respondent - Selection Board issued an advertisement dated 25.05.2018 for filling up 1832 posts of Agriculture Supervisor. Out of the aforesaid posts, certain posts were reserved for divorcee candidates as per the relevant Rules.
4. The petitioner, being qualified for the post of Agriculture Supervisor, applied under the category of 'divorcee' and submitted her application form on 30.07.2018, before the last date of submitting application form, i.e., 03.08.2018.
5. The respondents rejected petitioner's candidature as divorcee inasmuch as, the petitioner's decree of divorce was issued on 15.01.2019, after the last date of submitting application forms.
(Downloaded on 19/01/2021 at 08:52:54 PM)
(4 of 6) [CW-7712/2020]
6. Mr. Jangid, learned counsel for the petitioner invited Court's attention towards Note No.3 of Clause No. 7 of the recruitment notification and argued that as the same stipulates that a candidate's eligibility shall be seen on the date of holding of written examination or interview, the petitioner should be held entitled to be considered as divorcee'. He added that indisputably, written examinations were held on 03.03.2019 and prior thereto, the petitioner had obtained decree of divorce.
7. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent - Commission submitted that the controversy involved in the present case has already been set at rest by this Court in plethora of judgments, out of which the leading case being Suman Choudhary Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.9649/2017, decided on 10.08.2017), followed in the case of Jyoti Singhal Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (S.B. Civil writ Petition No.14372/2017, decided on 09.11.2017).
8. Mr. Jangid, learned counsel for the petitioner, in rejoinder, submitted that as the recruitment notification does not contain a cut-off date, the eligibility has to be reckoned as on the date of holding of written examination, i.e. 03.03.2019.
9. Heard.
10. Clause No.7, mentioned in the advertisement reads thus:
"7- ik=rk ,oa "kS{kf.kd ;ksX;rk %&
(i) Hkkjr esa fof/k }kjk LFkkfir fdlh ekU;rk izkIr fo"ofo|ky; ls ch-,l-lh- ¼d`f'k½ ;k ch-,l-lh- ¼d`f'k&m|ku½ vkWulZ vFkok fdlh ekU;rk izkIr cksMZ ls 10$2 ;kstuk ds v/khu d`f'k ds lkFk lhfu;j ek/;fed ;k iqjkuh ;kstuk ds v/khu d`f'k ds lkFk mPp ek/;fedA vkSj
(ii) nsoukxjh fyih esa fy[kh fgUnh esa dk;Z djus dk Kku ,oa jktLFkku dh laLd`fr dk KkuA vko";d uksV%& ijUrq ,slk O;fDr] tks lh/kh HkrhZ gsrq fu;eksa ;k vuqlwfp;ksa esa ;Fkk mfYyf[kr in ds fy, visf{kr "kS{kf.kd vgZrk okys (Downloaded on 19/01/2021 at 08:52:54 PM) (5 of 6) [CW-7712/2020] ,sls ikB~;Øe ds vfUre o'kZ dh ijh{kk esa mifLFkr gks pqdk@pqdh gS ;k mifLFkr gks jgk@jgh gS] ml in ds fy, vkosnu djus dk ik= gksxk@gksxh fdUrq mls & 1- tgka p;u fyf[kr ijh{kk ,oa lk{kkRdkj ds nks izØeksa ds ek/;e ls fd;k tkrk gks] eq[; ijh{kk esa mifLFkr gksus ls iwoZ] 2- tgka p;u fyf[kr ijh{kk ,oa lk{kkRdkj ds ek/;e ls fd;k tkrk gks] lk{kkRdkj esa mifLFkr gksus ls iwoZ] 3- tgka p;u dsoy fyf[kr ijh{kk ;k ;FkkfLFkfr] dsoy lk{kkRdkj ds ek/;e ls fd;k tkrk gks] fyf[kr ijh{kk vFkok lk{kkRdkj esa mifLFkr gksus ls iwoZ] leqfpr p;u ,stUs lh@cksMZ dh visf{kr "kS{kf.kd vgZrk fyf[kr ijh{kk dh frfFk rd vftZr dj ysus dk lcwr izLrqr djuk gksxkA cksMZ }kjk mDr inksa ij p;u fyf[kr ijh{kk ds ek/;e ls fd;k tk;sxkA"
11. Note No.3, appended to Clause No. 7 relied upon by the petitioner, cannot be read in isolation; it has to be read along with other conditions of Clause No.7. Clause No.7, if read in its entirety, is meant for both educational qualification and eligibility.
12. Note No.3 is only meant for educational qualification. In other words, Note No.3 of Clause No.7 is meant to include the candidates who are able to acquire the qualification till the date of holding of written examination/interview.
13. As against this, eligibility including eligibility to claim reservation of divorcee woman is not a qualification and it is the status of a candidate. Status of a candidate or caste or other eligibility of a candidate has to be seen when he/she submits the application form or at the best, on the last date of furnishing application form.
14. Hon'ble the Supreme Court, in the case of Ashok Kumar Sonkar Vs. Union of India, reported in (2007) 4 SCC 54, even in case of educational qualification, has held that the same is required to be seen on the last date of submission of application form, if the terms of advertisement do not provide otherwise.
15. As noticed above, since Note No.3 of Clause No.7 is meant for educational qualification, in considered opinion of this Court, (Downloaded on 19/01/2021 at 08:52:54 PM) (6 of 6) [CW-7712/2020] the status of the petitioner has to be reckoned, when she submitted her application form.
16. Concededly, the petitioner was not having decree of divorce on the date of submitting application form- she cannot be considered to be a divorcee'.
17. In the case of Suman Choudhary (supra), followed in the case of Jyoti Singhal (supra), this Court has held as under:-
"In light of the discussion above, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioner having applied for divorce, cannot be treated to be a divorcee until and unless a decree of divorce by a competent court is passed. Since the petitioner's marriage stood dissolved w.e.f. 27.6.2017, the petitioner cannot claim a right of consideration as a divorcee, pursuant to her application submitted on 25.07.2016."
18. In view of the above, the captioned writ petitions are dismissed.
19. The stay applications also stand disposed of.
(DINESH MEHTA),J 156-157-skm/-
(Downloaded on 19/01/2021 at 08:52:54 PM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)