[2025:RJ-JP:36524] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13622/2025 Zahida D/o Liyakat Ali, Aged About 34 Years, R/o Gali No.3, Dhobi Talai, District Bikaner, Rajasthan-334001. ----Petitioner Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary, Information Technology And Communication Department, Govt. Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur (Raj.) 302005 2. Joint Director And Head Of The Office, Information Technology And Communication Department, IT Building, Yojana Bhawan Parisar, Tilak Marg, C-Scheme, Jaipur- 302005. 3. Secretary, Rajasthan Staff Selection Board, Krishi Prabandh Sansthan Parisar, Durgapura, Jaipur-302018. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Anand Sharma on behalf of Mr. Arvind Kumar Sharma For Respondent(s) : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND SHARMA Order 10/09/2025 1. Petitioner has filed the instant writ petition for seeking the directions against the respondents to appoint the petitioner on the post of Informatics Assistant in 'OBC Divorcee' category. 2. It is stated that respondent No.3-Rajasthan Staff Selection Board, Jaipur, issued one advertisement dated 16.01.2023, inviting applications from all the eligible persons for the post of Informatics Assistant and in the aforesaid advertisement, posts have also been reserved for the candidates falling in the 'Divorcee' category. [2025:RJ-JP:36524] (2 of 3) [CW-13622/2025] 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner indicates that as per the advertisement, the candidates were required to produce a decree of divorce/order issued by the Competent Court prior to the last date of filing of the application form. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that the last date of submitting the application form pursuant to advertisement dated 16.01.2023 was 25.02.2023, whereas a Talaknama was executed to dissolve marriage of the petitioner with her ex-husband on 29.10.2022 and on the basis of the Talaknama, one suit for declaration was filed, which was decreed by the Family Court No.1, Bikaner (Rajasthan), vide judgment and decree dated 28.03.2023. The aforesaid decree also indicates that divorce between the petitioner and her ex-husband has already taken place on 29.10.2022. In view of above, the petitioner should have been treated as divorcee w.e.f. 29.10.2022, and not from the actual date of decree of divorce. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that on account of erroneous consideration made by the respondents, the petitioner's candidature has not been examined in divorcee category, which has caused grave prejudice and miscarriage of justice to the petitioner. 6. I have given anxious consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and examined the record. 7. It is relevant to mention here that the Rule with regard to grant of reservation to the Divorcee also requires that the candidate seeking reservation in the Divorcee category is required to produce a decree of divorce issued by the Competent Court. [2025:RJ-JP:36524] (3 of 3) [CW-13622/2025] 8. Thus, the relevant consideration is date of decree passed by the Competent Court and not the date from which the divorce has been directed to have taken place. In the instant case, admittedly, the date of decree of divorce is subsequent to the last date of filing of the application form, hence, the respondents have rightly not considered the petitioner in the Divorcee category. 9. In the case of Shalu Vs. State of Rajasthan passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court at Principal Seat, Jodhpur, in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.10003/2023 decided on 25.07.2023, in the similar circumstances, this Court was examining the claim of a female candidate, who was married on the last date of submitting the application form and a decree of divorce was acquired by her after such last date. While considering such facts, this Court has held that the candidate was required to submit decree of divorce prior to the last date of submitting application. 10. In view of above, there is no scope for interference in the instant writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Hence, the writ petition filed by the petitioner is, hereby, dismissed. (ANAND SHARMA),J DAKSH/33