Can Scheduled Tribe Female Candidate Without Divorce Decree Before Application Deadline Be Appointed Under Divorcee Category? Rajasthan HC Refers Issue To Larger Bench
Can a female candidate from the Scheduled Tribe category be considered for appointment under the Divorcee category without having a decree of dissolution of marriage from a court before the last date for submission of the application form? The Rajasthan High Court referred the issue to a larger Bench.
This is after noticing conflicting views were expressed in two earlier decisions of the Division Bench of the High Court. In this case, both petitioners filed writ petitions challenging the rejection of their candidatures for the post of Teacher Grade-III (Level-II) under the Scheduled Tribe (ST) [Divorcee] category. The issue was regarding the requirement of a decree of divorce issued by a court, with the Rajasthan Public Service Commission (RPSC) and the State (respondents) arguing that the petitioners did not have the decrees at the time of application.
A Single Bench of Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand observed, “This Court, accordingly, refer this case to the Special/Larger Bench to answer the following question:- Whether a female candidate of Scheduled Tribe Category is entitled to get appointment under the Divorcee Category without having a decree of dissolution of marriage by the Competent Court of law before the last date of submission of the application form?...Let the matter be now placed before Hon’ble the Chief Justice on the administrative side for constitution of a Special/Larger Bench to answer the aforesaid question, referred by this Court to the Special/Larger Bench.”
Advocate Akshit Gupta appeared for the petitioner, while Addl. GC Gopal Krishan Sharma represented the respondents.
The petitioner argued that she had already gone through a social divorce before participating in the recruitment process. Her decree was pending in the court but was granted after the cut-off date specified in the advertisement.
It was submitted that in the ST Community, there was a custom of taking social divorce and no separate decree was required to be taken. Under these circumstances, the petitioner argued that the respondents were duty-bound to consider the case of the petitioner under the ST (Divorcee) Category.
The High Court took note of the previous Division Bench ruling in Rajasthan Public Service Commission v. Sunita Meena (2017), where the court had granted relief to a similarly situated candidate. The court directed the RPSC to consider her case under the ST (Divorcee) category despite the absence of a decree before the cut-off date.
However, a there was conflicting view in a subsequent judgment in The Secretary, RPSC v. Sangeeta Varhat (2022), where the Division Bench held that the decision in Sunita Meena was per incuriam (given in ignorance of the law) and set aside the relief granted in that case.
Faced with two conflicting decisions by co-equal benches, the Court referred to the principle of judicial decorum and propriety, wherein Courts must refer conflicting judgments to a larger bench.
“In the situation like the present one, where two conflicting views have been taken by two different Division Benches, this Court has no option except to refer the matter to a Special/Larger Bench, so that the controversy is put to rest, in accordance with law,” the Court remarked.
Consequently, the Court placed the matter before the Chief Justice for the constitution of a Special/Larger Bench, which will determine whether a female candidate from the ST category is eligible for appointment under the divorcee category without a court decree before the application deadline.
Cause Title: Manju Bai Meena v. The State of Rajasthan & Ors.
Appearance:
Petitioner: Advocates Akshit Gupta and S. N. Meena
Respondents: Addl. GC Gopal Krishan Sharma; Dy. GC Namita Parihar; Advocate Uttam Jhanjhariya
