Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Ms.Richa Sharma vs State Of Rajasthan & Ors on 13 July, 2017
Author: Dinesh Mehta
Bench: Dinesh Mehta
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5230 / 2017
Ms/ Richa Sharma D/o Sh. Amar Kumar Sharma, Aged About 29
Years, R/o 53-A, Near Shiv Temple, Paltan Bazar, Ajmer At Present
Residing At East Patel Nagar, Circuit House Road, Jodhpur.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State of Rajasthan Through Director Secondary Education,
Department of Education, Bikaner.
2. Chairman, Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Ajmer.
3. Secretary, Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Ajmer.
----Respondents
_____________________________________________________
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Vinay Jain
_____________________________________________________
JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA
Judgment / Order
13/07/2017
The petitioner has preferred the writ petition with the
following prayer:-
"It is, therefore, prayed that by an appropriate
writ, order or direction respondent department be
directed to pass appropriate order for changing the
category of the petitioner from female general
category to female divorce category and further
petitioner should be considered for the post of of
Teacher Grade-1(Geology).
Costs of this Writ Petition may kindly be awarded
in favour of the petitioner.
Any other relief which this Hon'ble Court deems
fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of this
case may kindly be passed in favour of the petitioner."
(2 of 5)
[CW-5230/2017]
The facts involved in the present case are that the petitioner
having acquired Post-Graduation degree in Geology has also
secured Bachelor's degree in Education. Petitioner entered into
wedlock with one Gaurav Sharma on 23.11.2010, but their
relations got strained, for which they decided to dissolve their
marriage with mutual consent. In a bid to get legal separation,
they filed an application on 01.07.2016, which culminated into a
final decree of divorce on 28.01.2017.
In the meanwhile, an advertisement for appointment to the
post of School Lecturers in various subjects came to be issued by
the respondents. Petitioner, keen in getting the job, applied as a
general candidate. Pursuant to her application, an admit card
came to be issued, showing her as a general candidate. It is the
case of the petitioner that she appeared in the written
examination as a general candidate and the result of such
examination came to be declared on 28.09.2016, after she had
filed the application for dissolution of her marriage. The petitioner,
thus proceeded to make a representation dated 22.02.2017 to the
respondent-RPSC, inter alia with the request to consider her
candidature under the category of 'divorcee', instead of general
category candidate. The petitioner's request has been turned
down by the respondent Commission, inter alia observing that her
request cannot be considered for correction in the online
application form.
A notice for demand of justice dated 03.04.2017 was sent on
behalf of the petitioner, stating therein that in light of various
judgments of Supreme Court and High Court, petitioner should be
(3 of 5)
[CW-5230/2017]
permitted to change her category, as the selection process had not
completed by that time.
It is the case of the petitioner that as the respondents have
not paid any heed to her request for change of category, she was
constrained to approach this Court invoking its extraordinary writ
jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, for
claiming the aforesaid relief.
Mr. jain, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that at
the time of filling the application form, though the petitioner did
not fall in the category of divorcee women, however before the
selection process was over, her matrimony came to an end and as
such, her candidature was required to be considered as 'divorcee
woman'. In support of his arguments, learned counsel for the
petitioner relied upon a Division Bench's judgment of this Court,
rendered on 04.05.2017, in D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 692/2017
(Neetu Harsh Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.), wherein the said
petitioner was permitted to change her category from 'women' to
'Physically Handicapped'. With the help of the said Division Bench's
judgment, Mr. Jain argued that the petitioner is also entitled for
similar relief and prayed that a direction be issued to the
respondent Commission, to change her category from 'general
women' to 'divorcee women'.
Having considered the arguments of Mr. Jain and on perusal
of the factual matrix, this Court finds no substance in the petition
and force in the arguments raised by the petitioner.
It is not in dispute that on the date of filling the form, the
(4 of 5)
[CW-5230/2017]
petitioner's status was that of a married woman. It is a different
aspect of the matter that the petitioner subsequently became a
divorcee. But such change of status took place on 01.07.2016,
much after the date of filling of the form. Even the petition for
dissolution of marriage, which culminated into a final decree of
divorce on 28.01.2017, was filed later in point of time.
It is settled proposition of law that candidature and eligibility
of an incumbent is required to be decided on the date of
advertisement. Until and unless the terms of advertisement
notification permits consideration of subsequent event into
account, the same cannot be claimed as a matter of right. The
undisputed facts obtaining in the present case are that on the date
of submitting the form, petitioner did not fall in the ambit of
divorcee and as such she cannot be considered as a candidate
belonging to 'Divorcee Women Category'.
Adverting to the judgment cited by learned counsel for the
petitioner, suffice it to observe that in the case of Neetu Harsh
(Supra), the Hon'ble Division Bench has permitted the said
petitioner to carry out requisite change in her application form,
wherein her category had been mentioned as general, due to
inadvertence. It was an admitted fact that the said petitioner was
handicapped and her candidature or eligibility to lay claim in such
category was undisputed.
Juxtaposition to the above case, if the facts of the present
case are compared, it is to be seen that the petitioner's category
itself was not that of a divorcee women at the time of applying.
Hence, no parity can be claimed by the petitioner, on the basis of
(5 of 5)
[CW-5230/2017]
law laid down by Division Bench in case of Neetu Harsh (Supra).
In light of the above discussion, the instant writ petition is
devoid of merit and the same is dismissed, accordingly.
(DINESH MEHTA), J.
Anurag/79/Arun, PS