N.L TIBREWAL, J. - (1.) THE petitioner is a divorcee woman. Her grievance in this petition is that she has been wrongly denied appointment as School Teacher Grade III by the District Education Officer (Boys), Jhunjhunu in recruitments for the year 1996 -97 even though she was at No. 1 in merit amongst Divorcee/Widow applicants.
(2.) THE factual position is not disputed in the matter. The Director, Primary and Secondary Education, Rajasthan, Bikaner, invited applications from eligible candidates for recruitment in the vacancies of Teacher Grade II and III for the year 1996 -97. In the advertisement, 'Divorcee/Widow Women' formed a separate category in the reserve categories. As per conditions contained in advertisement a divorced woman was required to submit a copy of the decree of dissolution of marriage by a competent Court. From the reply of respondents it transpires that reservation for widows and divorcees was as a policy decision of the State Government with an object to make them financially independent for survival and rehabilitation. The petitioner was having requisite academic qualifications prescribed for the post of School Teacher Grade III. She was married with Shri Rajendra Prasad Sharma of Gorakhpur, but her marriage did not prove to be successful. The husband filed a petition for dissolution of marriage in the Family Court, at Gorakhpur, which was registered as case No. 191/1993. As per the petitioner, both parties were having grievance against each other as allegations and counter allegations were made in the said proceeding. Realising that marriage has proved to be total failure and there was no chance of any possibility of conjugal harmony, the parties thought it advisable to seek divorce by mutual consent under Section 13B of the Hindu Marriage Act (for short 'the Act'), instead of carrying on a defunct marriage. The Judge, Family Court, Gorakhpur, on being satisfied with the averements made in joint petition seeking dissolution of marriage by mutual consent, passed a decree of divorce vide judgment and order dated 7.7.1994. The husband also paid Rs. 70,000/ - by two Bank Drafts of Rs. 40,000/ - and Rs. 30,000/ - to the petitioner - wife towards expenses incurred by her father in the marriage. Since then the petitioner has been living in village Ranawas, District Jhunjhunu with her father and has not re -married. It. is not in dispute that petitioner was at No. 1 in the merit list of the category of divorcee/widow women. She obtained 64.3% marks, while women securing less marks were given appointment. The reason to deny her appointment, as stated by the respondents, is that the decree of divorce was obtained by mutual consent of the parties.
(3.) SHRI Ajay Rastogi, learned Counsel appearing for the divorced lady, strongly contended that action of the respondents in denying appointment to the petitioner is arbitrary, unjust and it amounts hostile discrimination. Learned Counsel contended that women securing less marks and being less meritorious have been given appointment, hence, the action of the respondents infringes Articles 14 and 16(1) of the Constitution of India, It was further submitted that policy decision of the State Government to provide employment to divorced or widowed woman is intended to provide them an opportunity to have an independent source of income for sustenance and survival and to live with dignity. In fact, learned Counsel contended, the policy has a laudable object so that a divorcee or widow may not have to live in an oppressed and distressed condition on the mercy of others, and no distinction is reasonably permissible in the case of a divorcee on the ground that the decree of dissolution was passed by mutual consent of the parties. Shri Rastogi further contended that under the Hindu Marriage Act, after insertion of Section 13B by Act No. 68 of 1976, a marriage can be dissolved by mutual consent on fulfilling requirements stated in the Section and such a decree of divorce is good for all purposes like other decrees of divorce passed under Section 13 of the Act and the effect of the decrees in both cases is same.;