[2025:RJ-JP:32402] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12348/2025 Mousam Goura D/o Sitaram Goura, Aged About 31 Years, R/o Ghoslyo Ki Badi Dhani, Vpo-Jaitpura, Teh.- Chomu, Dist.-Jaipur- 303704 (Raj.) ----Petitioner Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Though, Secretary, Information Tech- nology And Communication Department, Govt. Of Ra- jasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur (Raj.)302005 2. Joint Director And Head Of The Office, Information Tech- nology And Communication Department, It Building, Yo- jana Bhawan Parisar, Tilak Marg, C-Scheme, Jaipur - 302005. 3. Secretary, Rajasthan Staff Selection Board, Krishi Pra- bandh Sansthan Parisar, Durgapura, Jaipur-302018. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Arvind Kumar Sharma with Mr. Anand Sharma For Respondent(s) : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANEESH SHARMA Order 19/08/2025 1. By way of the instant writ petition under Articles 226, 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks a direction against the respondents to consider her candidature for the post of Informatics Assistant, pursuant to the advertisement dated 16.01.2023, under the OBC - Divorcee category (Annexure-1). 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respon- dents erred in not considering her candidature under the OBC - Divorcee category on the premise that the divorce decree obtained [2025:RJ-JP:32402] (2 of 3) [CW-12348/2025] by the petitioner is dated 28.03.2023 (Annexure-3), which is after the last date to submit the application. He further submits that vide order dated 29.01.2024 (Annexure-4), respondents had per- mitted candidates to correct their category on or before 09.02.2024; therefore, the divorce decree obtained on 28.03.2023, ought to have been considered. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the material available on record. 4. Admittedly, it would be apt to reproduce the relevant term of the advertisement, Note-5 to Paragraph-3: " efgykvksa gsrq vkjf{kr n'kkZ, x, inksa esa fu;ekuqlkj 8 izfr'kr in fo/kok ,oa 2 izfr'kr ifjR;Drk ¼fookg fofNUu efgyk½ efgykvksa ds fy, vkjf{kr gSA ;fn i;kZIr fo/kok vH;FkhZ miyC/k ugha gksrh gSa rks fo/kok ds fy;s vkjf{kr in dks mlh Js.kh dh ifjR;Drk ¼fookg& fofNUu efgyk½ ls Hkjk tk;sxkA blh izdkj ;fn i;kZIr ifjR;Drk vH;FkhZ miyC/k ugha gksrh gS rks buds fy;s vkjf{kr in dks mlh Js.kh dh fo/kok efgyk ls Hkjk tk;sxkA ;fn fo/kok ,oa ifjR;Drk nksuksa gh i;kZIr la[;k esa miyC/k ugha gksrh gS rks buds fy;s vkjf{kr in dks mlh Js.kh dh lkekU; efgyk ls Hkjk tk;sxkA fo/kok vkosnd gksus dh fLFkfr esa l{ke izkf/kdkjh }kjk tkjh ifr dh e`R;q dk izek.k&i= ,oa ifjR;Drk efgyk ¼fookg fofNUu efgyk½ dks fookg foPNsn dk U;k;ky; dk vkns'k@fMdzh izLrqr djuh gksxhA ifjR;Drk efgyk ¼fookg fofNUu efgyk½ dks fookg foPNsn dk U;k;ky; dk vkns'k@fMdzh bl HkrhZ esa vkosnu djus dh vafre frfFk ls iwoZ dk izLrqr djuk gksxkA " 5. Thus, the above note makes it clear that the decree of di- vorce had to be obtained before the last date to fill the application form. 6. It is an undisputed fact that the petitioner acquired a decree of divorce (28.03.2023) subsequent to the last date for filling up the form (25.02.2023). Therefore, merely because the respon- [2025:RJ-JP:32402] (3 of 3) [CW-12348/2025] dents have permitted candidates to make changes in their cate- gories vide order dated 29.01.2024 (Annexure-4), the petitioner cannot be considered eligible under the OBC - Divorcee category. This is because the petitioner does not possess the requisite quali- fications as per the terms of advertisement dated 16.01.2023, therefore, the prayer made by the petitioner for consideration of her candidature for appointment under the OBC - Divorcee cate- gory, cannot be accepted. 7 It is trite law that acquiring a document subsequent to the last date of the application form will not make the petitioner eligi- ble unless she possesses the requisite qualifications and eligibility on the date of the advertisement. 8. The above view of this Court is fortified by a catena of judg- ments 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 writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed. 10. The stay application and other pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of. (MANEESH SHARMA),J Seema/21