LAKSHMANAN, CJ. - (1.) HEARD learned counsel for the appellant.
(2.) THIS appeal is directed against the order passed by the learned Single Judge on 9. 9. 1997, allowing the writ petition filed by the respondent - herein. The learned Judge, after giving careful and deep consideration to the rival contentions made by the learned counsel for the parties, was of the opinion that the denial of employment/appointment to the respondent herein, in spite of her being at Serial Number 1 in the merit list, is an arbitrary and discriminatory action of the respondents. We have perused the judgment impugned in the present appeal. There is no dispute in regard to decree of divorce passed by the competent court dissolving marriage of the respondent herein, long before the advertisement calling applications for the recruitment. The decree had been passed under Sec. 13-B of the Act by mutual consent of the parties. This Sec. 13-B was introduced by Marriage Laws (Amendment) Act, 1976 (Act No. 68 of 1976 ). Prior to this amendment, a marriage could not be dissolved by a consent decree, even consent of the parties are fair and genuine due to failure of marriage. Sec. 13-B has been inserted by the Legislature with a view to dissolve the marriage by mutual consent where the parties genuinely felt that conjugal harmony was not possible in future and the marriage was broken down completely beyond all re- approachment or reconciliation, in stead of dragging the matter for a long time before the courts. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the appellant that a decree of divorce by a mutual consent is not as good as a decree of divorce obtained after consent u/s. 13 of the Act. We are unable to accept or countenance the said contention. The effect of a decree of divorce, whether obtained u/sec. 13 or 13-B is dissolution of marriage for all purposes-giving right to the parties to marry again. A decree of divorce by mutual consent also carries a presumption that it has not been obtained in collusion or otherwise by force, fraud or undue influence of any of the parties. In the instant case, the consent decree of divorce has not been obtained by both the parties illegally. The decree has been passed in the year 1994, much prior to the policy decision of the State Government and publication of the advertisement for recruitment. It is also not in dispute that the respondent - herein has been living with his father in village Ranasar in District Jhunjhunu, which is far away from her husband's native place. On merits also, it has been brought to our notice that the respondent herein has secured higher percentage of marks amongst divorced/widowed women as she was at S. No. 1 in merit list of the reserve category of `divorce/widow women. ' In the foregoing circumstances, we are of the opinion that the learned Single Judge is right in issuing a direction to the appellants-herein to give appointment to the respondent - herein on the post in question. The other directions, issued by the learned Single Judge in regard to the continuity of service and back salary etc. shall stand.
(3.) ACCORDINGLY, the special appeal stands dismissed. .;