Honble YADAV, J.–The present revision petition is listed today for disposal of the stay application. It is conceded by learned counsel for the parties that time which is likely to be taken in disposing of the stay application, within the same time the revision petition itself can be disposed off on merits. In view of aforesaid submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, I proposed to decide the pre- sent revision petition itself on merits.

(2). The instant revision petition stems from an order dated 15.3.97 passed by learned Additional District Judge, No.1, Bhilwara in Civil Misc. Appeal No. 36 of 1996, whereby he has confirmed the order of temporary injunction dated 19.3.96 passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division)-cum-Judicial Magistrate (West), Bhilwara in Civil Misc. Case No. 126 of 1995.

(3). Brief facts giving rise to the present revision are that non-petitioner-plaintiff instituted a regular Civil Suit in the court of learned Civil Judge (Junior Division)-cum-Judicial Magistrate (West), Bhilwara and prayed for permanent injunction to consider and include her candidature as `divorced woman candidate for appoint- ment on the post of Teacher Grade III.

(4). It is borne out from the record that petitioner No.2- Director, Primary and Secondary Education, Rajasthan, Bikaner invited applications for direct recruitment on the post of Teacher Gr.III and advertisement in this regard was published in the daily newspaper ``Rajasthan Patrika. In response to the said advertisement, the non-petitioner-plaintiff offered her candidature and claimed herself to be considered against the quota ear-marked for `divorced women candidates. It is also alleged by her that her candidature for recruitment to the post of Teacher Gr.III was not considered by respondent as a divorced woman candidate illegally and arbitrarily.

(5). From the perusal of averments made in the plaint as well as in the application moved under O.39, Rr. 1 and 2, CPC it is revealed that non-petitioner-plaintiff has alleged that according to Muslim rites by repeating the word ``Talak thrice the divorce is complete without intervention of a court and after such talak under Mohemadan Law, divorced woman cannot re-marry with the same person unless she is married with third person and marriage is consumated and again divorced by such third person. According to her, she is lawfully divorced woman candidate, therefore, she is entitled to be considered against the post earmarked for divorced woman candidates. It is also alleged by her that all divorced women candidates were called for interview on 31.5.95 but in the merit list her name was not included. It is also averred that upon enquiry, it is found that she was not treated as a divorced woman candidate as she did not produce a decree of divorce from a competent court of law.

(6). It is pertinent to mention here that along with the Civil Suit, she also moved an application for grant of temporary injunction under O.39, Rr. 1 and 2, CPC and prayed that defendant-petitioners may be restrained from making any appointment on the post of Teacher Gr.III out of merit list without including her name in the merit list as a divorced woman. She also prayed that defendant-petitioners may be direc- ted to treat her as a lawfully divorced woman candidate and her name be included in Schedule `A meant for divorced women candidates for appointment on the post of Teacher Gr.III.

(7). The defendant-petitioners filed a detailed reply and it was averred in their reply that the non-petitioner-plaintiff does not fulfil the requisite condition of eligi- bility so as to treat her as a divorced women candidate. It is also averred that as per prescribed procedure in the advertisement only those women candidates are treated to be eligibile for appointment against the qouta earmarked for divorced women candidates who had obtained a decree of divorce from courts. It is admitted in their reply that non-petitioner-plaintiffs candidature as divorced woma

Click Here to Read the rest of this document