[2026:RJ-JP:21629] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8606/2026 Monika Kumawat D/o Vimlesh Kumawat, Aged About 27 Years, R/o Kumharo Ka Mohalla, Ward No. 8, Sikar Rajasthan. ----Petitioner Versus 1. State of Rajasthan, through the Principal Secretary, Department of Education, Government of Rajasthan, Government Secretariat, Jaipur Rajasthan. 2. Director, Secondary Education, Rajasthan, Bikaner Rajasthan. 3. Joint Director, School Education, Churu Zone, Churu Rajasthan. 4. Rajasthan Staff Selection Board, State Institute Of Agriculture Management Premises Durgapura, Jaipur, Rajasthan through its Secretary. ----Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. Ripu Daman Singh Naruka Advocate. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND SHARMA Judgment 21/05/2026 1. The petitioner has filed instant writ petition with following prayers: “It is, therefore, most humbly prayed that Your Lordships’ may graciously be pleased to admit and allow this writ petition; call for and examine entire record of the case and a) By an appropriate writ, order and direction in the nature thereof the rejection document dated 11.4.2026 whereby during verification of documents the petitioner has been declared as ineligible because divorce decree is of the date after submission of application form may kindly be quashed and set aside and respondents may kindly be directed to consider the candidature of the petitioner under OBC WE DV category and give appointment to the petitioner on class IV employee under OBC WE DV category in pursuance to the Class IV Employees Direct Recruitment 2024 advertised under Advertisement No. 19/2024 dated 12.12.2024 with all consequential benefits. b) Any other relief as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper be also passed in favour of the Petitioner.” [2026:RJ-JP:21629] (2 of 5) [CW-8606/2026] 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner applied on 12.04.2025 for recruitment on the post of Class IV Employee pursuant to Advertisement dated 12.12.2024 issued by the respondents under OBC WE DV category, describing her as divorcee. However, decree of divorce was passed by the Family Court, Sikar (hereinafter to be referred as ‘the Family Court’) vide judgment and decree dated 05.07.2025. The petitioner appeared on 11.04.2026 for documents verification, but the Joint Director, School Education, Churu Zone, Churu declared the petitioner ineligible for the reason that the decree of divorce was passed by the Family Court after last date of submission of application forms. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the petitioner had applied under OBC WE DV category on 12.04.2025 as divorce petition filed by her on 03.02.2025 was pending before the Family Court whereupon, the Family Court passed decree of divorce vide judgment and decree dated 05.07.2025.. Therefore, on the date of documents verification, i.e., 11.04.2026, the petitioner was a divorcee and her candidature ought to have been considered by the respondents under OBC WE DV category. It is further submitted that on the date of submission of application form for recruitment on the post in question, the petitioner was residing separately from her husband and, therefore, marital status of the petitioner was not ‘married’. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is a meritorious candidate and entitled for appointment on the post of Class IV Employee under OBC WE DV category. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the respondents, while adopting mere technicalities, have acted in a manner which defeated the very spirit of the Constitution. It is submitted that impugned rejection document dated 11.04.2026, [2026:RJ-JP:21629] (3 of 5) [CW-8606/2026] rejecting candidature of the petitioner, is arbitrary and suffers from non application of mind as the recruitment process is still continuing and the same will culminate only upon issuance of appointment orders of the successful candidates. Since, the petitioner has secured more marks than the cut off marks of OBC WE DV category, therefore, her candidature ought to have been considered by the respondents under that category alone and thereafter, she ought to have been considered for recruitment on the post of Class IV Employee. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the material on record. 6. It is well settled that conditions of eligibility for participating in any recruitment process are governed by the provisions of the recruitment rules as well as terms and conditions of the advertisement. In the instant case, as per the recruitment rules as well as in view of notification dated 13.01.2016 issued by the Department of Personnel, whereby, reservation for divorcee and widows was introduced by the respondent-Government, the decree of divorce issued by competent court of law shall only be considered as the legitimate document for the purpose of determining the category of any candidate as divorcee. Thus, any other document, except the document specified in the rules as well as notification dated 13.01.2016 issued by the Department of Personnel, shall not be considered as the relevant document for determining the category of any candidate claiming herself to be a divorcee. In the instant case, it has also not been disputed that on the last date of submitting application form, the petitioner was not possessing the decree of divorce issued by the competent court of law and, therefore, she cannot be considered as eligible for the purpose of [2026:RJ-JP:21629] (4 of 5) [CW-8606/2026] participating in recruitment process initiated by the respondent- Board vide Advertisement No. 2/2025. 7. This Court in the case of Rihana Banu vs. State of Rajasthan & Others (S. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7500/2026 decided on 08.04.2026) has considered similar issue and observed as under: “7. Aforesaid conditions, in quite explicit terms have mandated that the candidate submitting application in the category of “divorcee” shall be treated as eligible in such category only on producing the decree of divorce passed by the Court of law. 8. Such conditions of the advertisement have not been challenged by the petitioner in the instant writ petition. 9. Submissions made by the petitioner that since, as per the Mohammedan Law, Mubarat agreement is also a valid procedure to dissolve marriage therefore, it should also be considered as a valid document for eligibility of the petitioner as a divorcee candidate, is wholly misconceived. In this regard, it is sufficient to observe that recruitment is conducted as per the recruitment rules. Conditions of eligibility as prescribed under the rules have also been reflected in the advertisement and therefore, the date of divorce for the purpose of personal law is not material while considering the eligibility conditions for the purpose of recruitment which shall be governed by the rules and conditions of advertisement. 10. This Court in a similar matter has considered similar issue in the case of Zahida Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. passed by this Court at Jaipur Bench in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.13622/2025, wherein following observations have been given:- “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. 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 [2026:RJ-JP:21629] (5 of 5) [CW-8606/2026] required to submit decree of divorce prior to the last date of submitting application.” 8. In the light of above discussion, it is clear that since the petitioner was not possessing a decree of divorce issued by the competent court of law on the last date of submission of application form, therefore, the respondents have not committed any error whatsoever in rejecting the candidature of the petitioner as the divorcee. 9. Consequently, instant writ petition fails and the same is hereby dismissed. 10. Pending applications, if any, also stand dismissed. (ANAND SHARMA),J MANOJ NARWANI/17