[2025:RJ-JP:30683] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11798/2025 Taniya Khan D/o Abdul Kalam Khan, Aged About 27 Years, Resident Of Pathan House, Indra Colony, Chhabra, District Baran-325220 (Mobile 9521620121) ----Petitioner Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Principal Secretary, Administrative Reforms Department, Government Secretariat, Jaipur. 2. Rajasthan Staff Selection Board, Jaipur Through Its Secretary, Rajasthan Agriculture Management Premises, Durgapura, Jaipur-302018 ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Tanveer Ahamad For Respondent(s) : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANEESH SHARMA Order 08/08/2025 1. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner applied for recruitment to the post of Clerk Grade-II/Junior Assistant pursuant to the advertisement No.6/2024 dated 13.02.2024 and was declared successful vide order dated 01.05.2025. He further submits that the petitioner had applied under the General (EWS) (Divorcee) Category for the reason that her marriage was solemnized on 26.12.2021 and came to an end on 15.07.2023 by virtue of a compromise relating to Khula/Talaq, which is annexed with this petition as Annexure-6. He further submits that pursuant to the said compromise, the decree of dissolution of divorce was also passed on 21.12.2024. He further [2025:RJ-JP:30683] (2 of 3) [CW-11798/2025] submits that the rejection of the candidature of the petitioner qua her status as a divorcee is arbitrary and suffers from perversity; therefore, the petitioner's candidature may be considered under the General (EWS) (Divorcee) Category. 2. Heard and considered the submissions and perused the material available on record. 3. Admittedly, the advertisement No.6/2024 was issued on 13.02.2024, and as evident from the decree of divorce passed by the Competent Court in Civil Suit No.43/2023 (CIS No.23/2024) dated 21.12.2024, which was much after the last date indicated in the advertisement. Further, the petitioner failed to substantiate that the alleged compromise/Khula Talaq is legal, valid, and enforceable in the absence of an affidavit of acceptance by the husband or proof of settlement of Mahr (dower) or an advisory of Mufti based on Shariat of his school or issuance of Qaza by a Qazi. 4. It is also pertinent to mention here that in the said deed, exact date of Talaq is not recorded, further if the marriage stands dissolved by the said compromise deed, what was the occasion for the parties to describe themselves as Husband and Wife in the title of the Suit No. 43/2023 (CIS No. 23/2024). 5. Looking to the substantial increase of false claims in seeking appointment under the category of divorcee, it is not safe to rely upon such an unregistered and unverified document and to treat the same as valid proof of divorce unless due compliance of relevant provisions of law is made. 6. It is trite law that acquiring a document subsequent to the last date of the application form will not make the petitioner eligible unless she possesses the requisite qualifications and [2025:RJ-JP:30683] (3 of 3) [CW-11798/2025] eligibility on the date of the advertisement. The rejection of the candidature of the petitioner vide communication dated 02.07.2025 (Annexure-9) stipulates that the petitioner failed to furnish a valid decree of divorce passed by a Competent Court till the last date of the application form. As in the present matter, the decree of divorce was produced by the petitioner (21.12.2024) after the prescribed last date i.e. 20.03.2024. The reason assigned under the communication dated 02.07.2025 (Annexure-9) cannot be said to be arbitrary, unreasonable, or perverse. 7. Therefore, this Court finds no illegality in the dismissal of the candidature of the petitioner on account of the communication dated 02.07.2025 (Annexure-9). 8. The above view of this Court is fortified by a catena of judgments passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rakesh Kumar Sharma vs. Government of NCT Delhi reported in (2013) 11 SCC 58; State of Gujarat and Ors. vs. Arvindkumar T. Tiwari and Ors reported in 2012 AIR SC 3281; Ashok Kumar Sharma vs. Chander Shekhar reported in (1997) 4 SCC 18; and M.V. Nair vs. Union of India reported in (1993) 2 SCC 429. 9. Accordingly, the present writ petition is hereby dismissed. 10. All pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of. (MANEESH SHARMA),J DEEPA-49