Order

20/09/2024 Reportable

1. Since both the writ petitions involve common facts and question of law, hence, at the request of the counsel for the parties, the arguments have been heard together.

2. For the sake of convenience, the facts pleaded and the prayer mentioned in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.24193/2018 has been taken into consideration.

3. The instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioner with the following prayer:-

“In these circumstances, it is, therefore, prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to accept this writ petition and i) the impugned action of the respondents in verbally rejecting the candidature of humble petitioner on the post of Teacher Gr.III (Level-II) (Hindi) under ST (Divorce) category may kindly be declared illegal and arbitrary and therefore, same may kindly be quashed and set aside.

ii) by issuing the writ of mandamus, order or direction in the nature thereof respondents may kindly be directed to consider humble petitioner under ST (Divorce) category and to give appointment to humble petitioner on the post of Teacher Grade-III (Level-II)

(Hindi) with all consequential benefits.

iii) Any other appropriate order or direction which the Hon'ble Court deems just and proper in the facts and circumstances of this case may kindly also be passed”

4. By way of filing of this writ petition, a prayer has been made for issuing direction to the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for appointment on the post of Teacher Grade-III (Level-

II) (Hindi) under the Scheduled Tribe (Divorcee) category.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that pursuant to the advertisement dated 31.07.2018, the petitioner participated in the selection process for appointment on the post of Teacher Grade-III (Level-II) (Hindi). Counsel submits that at the time of participation in the process for selection, divorce of the petitioner has taken place and a suit for declaration in this regard was pending before the competent Court, but the decree was passed after the cut-off date fixed in the advertisement. Counsel submits that in ST Community, there is a custom of taking social divorce and no separate decree is required to be taken. Counsel submits that under these circumstances, the respondents were duty bound to consider the case of the petitioner under the ST (Divorcee)

Category.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioners, in support of his contention, placed reliance upon the order passed by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Rajasthan Public Service Commission Vs. Sunita Meena & Ors.: (D.B. Speical Appeal Writ No.829/2017) decided on 14.07.2017, wherein the issue was identical and the writ petition filed by the similarly situated person Sunita Meena was allowed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 17.01.2017 and directions were issued to the Rajasthan Public Service Commission (for short, “the RPSC”) to consider her case for appointment on the advertised post by treating her under ST (Divorcee) Category. The order passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court dated 17.07.2017 was assailed by the RPSC by way of filing D.B. Speical Appeal Writ No.829/2017 (RPSC Vs. Sunita Meena) (supra), however, the same was rejected by the Division Bench of this Court on 14.07.2017 and the order passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court was upheld. Counsel submits that under these circumstances, the present petitioners are also entitled to the same relief, as granted by the Division Bench of this Court, in the case of Sunita Meena (supra).

7. Per contra, the learned counsel for the State-respondent as well as the learned counsel for the RPSC jointly opposed the arguments raised by the counsel for the petitioners and submitted that the category of a candidate is required to be seen at the time of last date of submission of the application form and at the time of submission of the application form, the present petitioners were not having any decree of dissolution of their marriage issued from t