Geeta Swami @APPELLANT@Hash State of Rajasthan & Ors

This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking a direction to the respondents to consider the candidature of the petitioner for the post of

Teacher Gr.III (Level-II) in subject Hindi (Non-TSP) and allow the petitioner to participate in the selection process.

A copy of the writ petition has been supplied to learned counsel appearing on caveat.

At the request of learned counsel for the parties, the writ petition has been finally heard.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that though the petitioner as a divorcee stands in merit, after documents verification on account of the

condition indicated in the decree of divorce dated 10.02.2009 restraining the petitioner from using the decree for the purpose of employment, petitioner

would be deprived form employment.

It is further submitted that such a condition imposed by the trial court is ex-facie without jurisdiction and as such, the same has to be ignored and

therefore, a direction in this regard may be issued.

Reliance was placed on judgment of this Court Sunita @ Sonu v. Ramdev : S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No.1489/2008, decided on 30.03.2009.

Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that once a conditional decree of divorce has been passed, the petitioner is bound by the same and

cannot contend otherwise and therefore, the writ petition deserves to be dismissed.

I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the material available on record.

A perusal the decree dated 10.02.2009 (Annex.11) passed by the Court of Additional District Judge No.2, Bikaner indicates that though on an

application filed by the parties under Section 13B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for grant of divorce with mutual consent, the trial court framed

issue pertaining to collusion between the parties and recorded a finding that there was no collusion, however, while granting the decree of divorce

went on to order that the parties would not be entitled to seek benefit of employment from Central / State Government.

This Court in the case of Sunita @ Sonu (supra), which order was incidentally also passed by the same Presiding Officer, who had passed the order

dated 10.02.2009, inter-alia laid down as under :-

“It will be worthwhile to mention here that both the parties sought divorce under Section 13B of the Hindu Marriage Act wherein for the reasons

best known to the court below the issues were framed and evidence appears to have been taken, which might have been taken for statistical benefits

only. The trial court has no jurisdiction to impose this condition that the divorce decree shall not be used for getting any Government employment. The

trial court had no jurisdiction to go beyond the scope of Section 13B and further more could not have passed the order in the matter of employment

in the Government when there are rules framed for such appointments.

In view of the above, the appeal of the appellant is allowed. The order of the trial court that decree cannot be used for any Government employment is

set aside.â€​

In view of the law laid down by this Court in the case of Sunita @ Sonu (supra), the condition imposed in the decree dated 10.02.2009 passed by the

Additional District Judge No.2, Bikaner being wholly without jurisdiction, the condition imposed deserves to be ignored.

Consequently, the writ petition filed by the petitioner is allowed. The respondents are directed to ignore the said part of the decree and grant

appointment to the petitioner in terms of her merit after undertaking requisite counseling.