Citations: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 1 To 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 221Rajasthan HC Cancels Air Force Personnel's Anticipatory Bail Due To Misrepresentation, Hiding True Facts Like Grievous Injury Caused to VictimTitle: Ramesh Kumar v State of Rajasthan & Anr.Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 1The Jodhpur bench of the Rajasthan High Court cancelled the anticipatory bail of an Air Force personnel on the...
Citations: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 1 To 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 221
Title: Ramesh Kumar v State of Rajasthan & Anr.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 1
The Jodhpur bench of the Rajasthan High Court cancelled the anticipatory bail of an Air Force personnel on the grounds that he allegedly misrepresented and hid material true facts when he argued his anticipatory bail which was eventually granted last year.
Justice Farjand Ali observed that during the proceedings of anticipatory bail, the counsel appearing for the accused had only mentioned the charges of hurt (Section 323) and endangering human life (Section 336) while hiding the charge of grievous hurt which was added on account of the victim permanently losing vision in his left eye due to the injury caused by the accused.
Title: Narpat Surela v the State of Rajasthan, and other connected petitions
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 2
Rajasthan High Court has ruled that not following the procedure like issuance of model answer key, inviting objections, constitution of committee of experts and issuance of final answer key in the recruitment process for government posts, renders the process non-transparent and violates the fundamental rights of the aspirants under Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution.
The bench of Justice Sameer Jain thus directed the State and its authorities including the Rajasthan Public Service Commission and Rajasthan Staff Selection Board to undertake the recruitment process in strict adherence to the law and the Supreme Court's decision in Harkirat Singh Ghuman v. Punjab and Haryana High Court & Ors., and prepare a fresh merit list within 2 months.
Title: Amrit Transport Company v Oriental Insurance Company & Anr.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 3
The Jaipur bench of the Rajasthan High Court has ruled that a claim bill (voucher) cannot be equated to a notice required under Section 16 of the Carriage by Road Act, as per which legal proceedings cannot be initiated against a common carrier unless a notice in writing was served on them.
The court also observed that under Section 16 the Carriage by Road Act provides that before institution of suit or legal proceedings, it is necessary to serve a notice of demand in writing. Thus, a suit or proceeding can be instituted, only after such notice, the court opined.
Title: Nopa Ram & Ors. v State of Rajasthan & Anr.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 4
While setting aside a decision of the trial court taking cognizance of offences including rioting in a protest plea, the Jodhpur bench of the Rajasthan High Court reiterated that it was settled law that while taking cognizance of offence on a protest petition the Magistrate should demonstrate his "disagreement with the police report".
Justice Farjand Ali held that a definite opinion was required to be made or at least grounds of final report had to be considered by the magistrate before proceeding further.
Title: M/s S.A.S R.K. Marble Udhyog v Shree Pustimargiya & Ors., and other connected petitions
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 5
Rajasthan High Court has ruled that since mining could not be termed as an agricultural activity under Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 (“the Act”), the land used for mining operations could not be termed as a land used for agricultural purposes especially when in the revenue records the nature of the land was recorded as “for mining purposes”.
After hearing the counsels, the Court perused Section 5(24) and Section 5(2) of the Act that defined “Land” and “Agriculture” respectively, and held that the conjoint reading of these reflected that the mining could not be termed as an agricultural activity and the land used for mining operations could not be termed as a land used for agricultural purposes.
Title: Dinesh Kumar v State of Rajasthan & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 6
Rajasthan High Court set aside the order of a District Education Officer wherein the services of a Junior Assistant (Clerk Grade-II) (“Petitioner”) were terminated based on the fact that the ground on which the Petitioner was terminated was not appearing either in the charge sheet or in the inquiry report.
The bench of Justice Dinesh Mehta held that,
“In the opinion of this Court, when there was no charge in the memorandum of charges relating to petitioner's involvement as a dummy candidate and charge No.3 was only in relation to concealment from the respondents of his arrest in a criminal case, the disciplinary authority could not have proceeded on assumption of his guilt of appearing as a dummy candidate, more particularly, when neither the charge-sheet nor the inquiry report suggested the same.”
Title: Dr. Ashok Kumar v the State of Rajasthan and other connected petitions
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 7
The Jodhpur bench of the Rajasthan High Court has underscored that in cases concerning doctors/hospital administration involving allegations of forging pathological reports, meticulous judicial scrutiny was required before taking cognizance, especially when the doctor had not refuted the authenticity of the signatures.
Justice Farjand Ali opined that the risk of invoking presumptions under Section 114, Indian Evidence Act in medico-legal matters was magnified and hence in such cases, the Court must refrain from applying the theory of general presumptions unless there was clear, scientific and legally admissible evidence available to substantiate the allegations. For context Section 114 lays down that the Courts could presume existence of a fact which was likely to have happened in light of common cause of events, human conduct and public and private business.
Title: Ramesh v State of Rajasthan
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 8
Expressing “anguish and pain” over denial of bail to a man not even named by the minor victim in her statement, the Rajasthan High Court has sought explanation from a Special POCSO Judge for his decision.
The bench of Justice Anil Kumar Upman opined that the increasing tendency of trial courts in rejecting bail petitions in a "casual and routine manner" even in appropriate cases was concerning and needed to stop as it not only increased agony of accused persons languishing in an overcrowded prison system of India but also increased burden on High Courts.
“Denying such a right in a routine manner even in appropriate cases amounts to failure of the courts in performing the sacrosanct judicial function, which is the paramount feature of the judicial system in this country. Trial Courts functioning at the district level make up the very foundation of the Indian Judicial system which makes it even more important for the High Courts to not condone such practices of the Trial Courts.”
Title: Alok Chitra Mandir v Hemant Jain, Deputy Commissioner (Administration), Commercial Taxes, Bikaner
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 9
The Jodhpur bench of Rajasthan High Court recently directed the Deputy Commissioner Commercial Taxes, Bikaner to recall its order denying benefit of an amended scheme on entertainment tax to a cinema theatre, terming it contemptuous since it affirmed an earlier order which had already been annulled by the high court in 2014.
After hearing the contentions and perusing the 2014 order Justice Rekha Borana observed that the high court had then held in specific terms that the petitioner could not be deprived of the benefit of the amended scheme which came into effect from February 23, 1995 and further, the contention of the department that the petitioner would be governed by the old unamended scheme could not be accepted.
Title: Vikram Singh v the State of Rajasthan & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 10
The Jaipur bench of the Rajasthan High Court has said that even though only the original registering authority could cancel the registration of a vehicle under Section 55(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, the provision does not prevent any other registering authority from issuing show cause notices and/or conducting inquiry in the matter.
For context, Section 55(2) MV Act lays down cancellation of registration and provides that the original registering authority could cancel the registration, and any other registering authority than the original one could forward the report to the original authority to cancel the registration.
Title: Dr. Amit Mundel v Union of India & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 11
Rajasthan High Court dismissed the petition filed against AIIMS, Jodhpur challenging the demand for a deposit of Rs. 5,00,000 from the petitioner who took admission pursuant to spot counselling in the college but then chose to vacate the seat mid semester.
The bench of Justice Vinit Kumar Mathur observed that the condition of depositing the amount in the event of vacating the seat mid-semester was mentioned in the prospectus issued in 2023 and since the process of spot counselling was a continuation of the process of filling up of vacant seats in the PG program in 2023, it did not make any difference if the condition was not mentioned in the notification for spot counselling.
Title: Omprakash Sundra v Pawan Kumar
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 12
Rajasthan High Court set aside conviction and sentence in a cheque dishonour case in light of settlement reached between the parties while imposing a cost of 15% of the cheque value on the petitioner (convict) since the compromise was reached at after rejection of appeal filed by the convict and pending revision petition.
The Court made reference to the Supreme Court case of Damodar S. Prabhu v Sayed Babala H. and ruled,
“sentence awarded to the petitioner for offence under Section 138 NI Act is liable to be set aside. However, since the compromise has been arrived at after rejection of the appeal preferred by the petitioner, a cost of 15% of the cheque amount deserves to be imposed upon the petitioner…”
Title: Arun Kumar Agarwal & Ors. v State of Rajasthan & Ors., and other connected petitions
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 13
Rajasthan High Court has upheld the unilateral reversal of promotion granted to certain Grade-III Teachers, in order to maintain the list of seniority.
In such a scenario, bench of Justice Dinesh Mehta said, the State's omission to give the teachers an opportunity of hearing did not cause any prejudice since admittedly, the persons who were granted promotion in Petitioners' place, were senior to the petitioners.
“The petitioners reversion is a natural concomitant of grant of promotion to the persons senior to them, which has been done in review DPC...Such being the factual backdrop, the observance of principles of natural justice, even if made, would have been an empty formality,” the bench observed.
Title: Arvind Kumar v Union of India & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 14
Rajasthan High Court allowed the petition filed by a candidate denied mason post for being declared medically unfit on account of amputated little finger of his left hand (non-dominant hand), as opposed to another candidate who was given the employment despite having amputation of finger in his dominant hand.
While terming the approach of the State to be “lopsided on the very basic commonsense”, the bench of Justice Arun Monga opined that the petitioner was subjected to discrimination as compared to the other candidate, and observed that what had to be seen for a right-handed person was if he had any unfitness in the same hand, and if not, whether the left hand interfered with the skill of the right hand.
Title: Heera Lal & Ors. v State of Rajasthan & Anr.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 15
Remarking that the court is already flooded with several quashing petitions under Section 482 CrPC, the Rajasthan High Court observed that though both High Court and Sessions Court have concurrent jurisdiction to review orders, a party cannot bypass the Sessions court's revisional jurisdiction.
Section 397, CrPC lays down the revisional powers of the High Court and the Sessions Court.The Court was hearing a quashing petition under Section 482, CrPC, challenging an FIR filed against the Petitioner as well as the order of the magistrate's court wherein charges were framed against him.
Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand in his order said, "This Court is already flooded with lot of Criminal Miscellaneous Petitions under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Hence one cannot be allowed to by-pass the revisional jurisdiction of the Sessions Court only because this Court can entertain a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. or both the High Court and the Sessions Court have concurrent jurisdiction under Section 397 Cr.P.C. No exceptional case has been made out by the petitioner for invoking the inherent jurisdiction of this Court to entertain a petition against the order of framing of impugned charges against him".
Title: Sh. Mohanlal & Ors. v State of Rajasthan & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 16
Rajasthan High Court reiterated that there was no blanket rule against filing successive petitions under Section 482, CrPC, before the High Court, however, in such petitions it had to be seen whether there was any change in facts and circumstances that necessitated filing of the petition.
The bench of Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand was hearing a criminal miscellaneous petition against the order of the Additional CJM wherein cognizance of offences was taken against the petitioners.
Against this order, a criminal revision petition was filed by the petitioners before the Additional Sessions Judge, but the same was rejected. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners had approached the Court earlier also, in 2021, by way of filing a criminal miscellaneous petition but the same was withdrawn to take all averments at the stage of framing of charges.
Title: Shyam Singh v State of Rajasthan & Anr.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 17
Rajasthan High Court has set aside the forfeiture of 26 years of service of a constable who went on unsanctioned leave of 15 days on account of illness, opining that the punishment was so excessive, grossly disproportionate and arbitrary that it shook the conscience of the Court and undermined the rehabilitative objective that a welfare state ought to follow.
The bench of Justice Arun Monga further opined that Rule 86(1) of the Rajasthan Service Rules, 1951 (“1951 Rules”) should be applied judiciously, and forfeiture of past service of 26 years could not be done by a stroke of a pen in a mechanical manner. It held that disciplinary actions should not aim to terminate the employment rather than correct the same.
The Court further ruled that administrative decisions affecting employee's entire career must prioritize principle of least harm since excessive punishment ran the risk of creating a chilling effect where employees hesitate to report health issues or request leave fearing severe consequences.
Title: Sunder Singh v State of Rajasthan & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 18
The Jodhpur bench of the Rajasthan High Court set aside a 14-year-old order demoting a government employee from a post on which he served for 17 years, wherein the demotion was directed based on a judgment in a plea by a similarly situated counterpart who had also sought promotion but was denied noting that he wasn't entitled to it.
The bench of Justice Arun Monga opined that since there was no discussion of the petitioner's case in the other writ petition, no adverse consequences could be drawn onto the petitioner merely based on some observations regarding his promotion being erroneous made in passing reference.
Title: Amrit Pal v State of Rajasthan & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 19
The Jodhpur bench of the Rajasthan High Court set aside order rejecting candidature of the petitioner based on pending cruelty case under Section 498A IPC, ruling that at best the petitioner was "merely an under trial" and his fate is yet to be determined based on the trial's outcome.
Furthermore, the court noted that a mere break down of marriage could not be treated as if the husband was the "sole erring party" just because his wife pressed criminal charges against him which were yet to be proved.
Perusing the order rejecting the petitioner's candidature, Justice Arun Monga said, "Prima facie, having seen the impugned order dated 08.03.2024 which is being termed as a speaking order, it is anything but speaking. It does not clarify as to how the nature of pending criminal trial in any manner impeached the duties to be performed by the petitioner and/or how does it amount to a moral turpitude without there being any finding of facts and or criminal culpability. At best, the petitioner is merely an under trial and his fate is yet to be governed depending on the outcome of the trial. Furthermore, possibility of a compromise between husband and wife cannot be ruled out at subsequent stage. Be that as it may, mere break down of a marriage cannot be treated as if the husband is the sole erring party just because his wife has chosen to press criminal charges against him, which are yet to be proved".
Title: Jaipur Development Authority v. TPl-Sucg Consortium
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 20
The Rajasthan High Court Bench of Justice Sudesh Bansal has held that the Commercial Court has committed jurisdictional error in exercising its discretion arbitrarily, mechanically and injudiciously, while putting the condition to deposit 50% of the awarded amount, for operating stay against arbitral award without assigned justified and sound reasonings.
Additionally, the court modified the order in the manner that the stay order will become operative only after furnishing security in the form of FDR of a nationalised bank, equivalent to the 50% of the awarded amount, before the Commercial Court.
Title: Asharam Alias Ashumal v/s State of Rajasthan
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 21
The Rajasthan High Court (Jodhpur bench) today granted interim bail till March 31 to self-styled godman Asaram Bapu, who is serving a life sentence in connection with a 2013 rape case. This order enables Asaram to walk out of jail for the first time since his arrest in 2013.
The order was passed by a bench of Justice Dinesh Mehta and Justice Vinit Kumar Mathur a week after the Supreme Court granted Bapu interim bail till March 31 to avail medical treatment.
The Top Court had granted him medical bail till March 31, 2025, enabling Asaram to undergo necessary treatment. The bench clarified that the relief was granted solely on humanitarian grounds and directed compliance with conditions imposed during the bail period. The Court also indicated that Asaram's medical status could be reassessed closer to the expiration of the bail term.
Title: Pallav Sharma v State of Rajasthan & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 22
The Jaipur bench of the Rajasthan High Court directed expunging of adverse remarks against an advocate, having a practice of more than 19 years, put on record by a division bench of the Court in its order in a criminal miscellaneous petition on the ground that the “petitioner misbehaved with the Court and used undisciplined language/words and failed to maintain the discipline of the Court and left the desk from the Court after showing tantrums and attitude”.
Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand relief upon the Supreme Court case of Neeraj Garg vs. Sarita Rani and Others in which it was held that,
“While it is of fundamental importance in the realm of administration of justice to allow the judges to discharge their functions freely and fearlessly and without interference by anyone, it is equally important for the judges to be exercising restraint and avoid unnecessary remarks on the conduct of the counsel which may have no bearing on the adjudication of the dispute before the Court… The Appellant whose professional conduct was questioned, was not provided any opportunity to explain his conduct or defend himself. The comments were also unnecessary for the decision of the Court. It is accordingly held that the offending remarks should be recalled to avoid any future harm to the appellant's reputation or his work as a member of the Bar.”
Title: X v/s State of Rajasthan & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 23
While disposing of a habeas corpus petition filed by a father, the Jaipur bench of the Rajasthan High Court refused to interfere with the mother's custody over the two minor children, in view of the court's interaction with the children and their wish to not stay with their father.
A division bench of Justice Pankaj Bhandari and Justice Shubha Mehta in its order observed,"Coming to the wish of the children, from interaction with the children, it is revealed that both the children do not wish to stay with petitioner-their father. Children are aged 11 and 12 years and even after they have remained in custody of petitioner, their wish is to stay with their mother-respondent No.5".
Title: Padam Chand Prajapat v L.I.C and Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 24
The Jodhpur bench of Rajasthan High Court quashed Life insurance Corporation of India's order (LIC) initiating recovery proceedings against its Development Officers in connection with the money generated by the business conducted by an agent who was not authorized to work for LIC as he was in government service.
Justice Arun Monga said, "Be that as it may, neither LIC has suffered any loss nor took any steps against the said Basti Ram Roj/agent, by filing an appropriate complaint before his employer that, while serving for the Government he violated his service rules by working as an agent. Not only this, it transpires that as far as Basti Ram's services as agent are concerned, he rather brought business to LIC. There is no gainsay to state that, being a commercial organization, LIC rather got more business through the agent. Therefore, it is rather intriguing as to why would LIC act against its own interest by taking action against a third party, who, if at all, was delinquent of violating service code with his employer".
Title: Abdul Hamid v State of Rajasthan & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 25
The Jodhpur bench of Rajasthan High Court quashed the State government's order, which did not regularize a man on the ground that his initial work on daily wages was different from his counterparts, terming the consideration as “irrelevant” and the actions of the State as discriminatory and violative of Articles 14 and 16.
Justice Arun Monga said, “The principle of equity warrants equal treatment for employees in comparable situations. However, the respondents appointed the petitioner as LDC effective from 16.01.1992, creating an arbitrary distinction without reasonable justification. This action amounts to hostile discrimination. Notably, the respondents admitted that counterparts were regularized under the same notification. Their argument that the petitioner's initial work on daily wages differs is irrelevant once the conditions for regularization were fulfilled. Denying regularization from the correct date infringes on the petitioner's rights to equal pay for equal work and protection under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution, which ensure equality before the law and prohibit discrimination in employment”.
Title: Shivangi Pathak v The Rajasthan Public Service Commission & Anr.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 26
The Jodhpur bench of the Rajasthan High Court granted relief to certain candidates who had applied for the post of Assistant Prosecution Officer, directing the State to allow these candidates to appear for the examination to the Post even though at the time of filling the application form they had not passed their law degree.
Justice Arun Monga observed that the actions of the candidates were in consonance with the original advertisement for the post, the detailed guidelines provided on the website of Rajasthan Public Service Commission (RPSC), as well as the Rajasthan Prosecution Subordinate Service Rules, 1978 and the same could not have been changed by RPSC in the middle of the selection process.
Title: Narendra Kumar Soni v State of Rajasthan
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 27
In case concerning trap proceedings, the Jaipur bench of the Rajasthan High Court has reiterated that the right of an accused to a free and fair probe/trial under Article 21 in seeking call/tower location details under Section 91 CrPC would prevail over the right to privacy of the police officials.
The court added that this right of privacy can be breached to some extent for production of call details, to discover the truth and to ensure fairness towards all stakeholders.
Anoop Kumar Dhand said this in a plea challenging an order by the Special Judge, Prevention of Corruption Act, which had rejected the petitioner's application under Section 91, CrPC, seeking preservation of the location of the mobile numbers of certain witnesses including the mobile number of the complainant and Investigation Officer along-with other members of the trap party.
Title: Jodhpur Institute of Engineering and Technology v Appellant Authority, under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 28
The Jodhpur bench of the Rajasthan High Court came down heavily upon the Jodhpur Institute of engineering and Technology for indulging in “frivolous and obstructive litigation” against its deceased employee and his wife in the matter of payment of gratuity ruling that it was not a bounty but a statutory right.
Justice Arun Monga also imposed a cost of Rs. 25,000 on the institute and held that the actions of the petitioner to relentlessly pursued this litigation against its terminally ill employee and thereafter his widow, displayed its lack of compassion.
"Trite it may sound, gratuity is not a bounty but a statutory right and delays in its payment are a serious violation. As a reputed educational institute, the petitioner has to be held to higher standards of accountability and responsibility. Their actions undermine their moral obligations and, no doubt, if not censured, would create an adverse precedent in similar institutions," the court added.
Title: Sohan Lal Sharma v State Finance and Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 29
The Jodhpur bench of the Rajasthan High Court recently granted relief to retired government lecturer who was denied medical reimbursement by the State in 2008, for his heart surgery pursuant to suffering a heart attack, on the ground that he had received treatment from a non-recognized private hospital.
Justice Arun Monga referred to a decision of a coordinate bench in Kanhaiya Lal Dave Versus State of Rajasthan which states:
“when a family member suffers from cardiac ailment, the prime objective of the other family member would be to save his/her life. At that time, services of whichever hospital is suited could be utilized because emergency knows no law and no procedure and when human life is at stake, in such situation, ultimate responsibility of the State cannot be washed off…Government cannot insist upon an employee to get himself treated at recognized government institution. All that the Government in these circumstances can do is to reimburse the concerned employee at the rates that may be applicable in the recognized government institution…consequently, the reimbursement of the medical expenses borne by the State Government employees and pensioners has to be done even if the treatment is undertaken at unrecognized hospital outside the State…”
Title: Suresh Kumar v State of Rajasthan & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 30
The Jodhpur bench of the Rajasthan High Court recently granted interim relief to a government Medical Officer who had been suspended by the State, after he was arrested in a case for allegedly helping the principal accused in preparing a fabricated mark-sheet.
Justice Arun Monga said, "Given the sheer time lapse between the time when the petitioner was arrested and the time of passing the impugned order, coupled with the fact that, at this stage, petitioner is merely an under trial/ co-accused, since the trial has commenced after filing the chargesheet, his suspension may not be warranted.”
Title: Tulcha Ram v the State of Rajasthan & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 31
In a case where two officers governed by two different departments and disciplinary authorities are booked by only one taking disciplinary action, the Jodhpur bench of the Rajasthan High Court said that in such a case only the Chief Secretary/competent authority of Administrative Reforms and Coordination Department can direct a joint inquiry under the relevant rules.
After considering the case Justice Dinesh Mehta said that "Direct answer to the question-which is the authority competent to pass such order under Rule 18 of the CCA Rules, 1958 is not available under the CCA Rules, 1958. However, as per the Rajasthan Rules of Business, the department of Administrative Reforms and Coordination, headed by the Chief Secretary of the State is entrusted with the task of coordinating with other administrative departments. In the cases like the one in hands, when two delinquents whose disciplinary authorities are officers or Secretaries of different departments, then, it is the Chief Secretary or other competatnt authority of the Administrative Reforms and Coordination Department alone, who can pass an order under Rule 18 of CCA Rules, 1958"
Title: Rashmi Khandelwal v Kanhiyalal and Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 32
The Jaipur bench of the Rajasthan High Court has reiterated that Section 143A, Negotiable Instruments Act, inserted after an amendment in 2018 introducing payment of interim compensation to complainant in a cheque bouncing case, has prospective application and cannot be applied to complaints filed before the amendment in a retrospective manner.
Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand relied upon the Supreme Court case of G.J. Raja v Tejraj Surana, thereafter said, "In the light of the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of G.J. Raja (supra) it is clear that Section 143A of the Act of 1881 has its prospective effect and the same is applicable upon the complaints filed under Section 138 of the Act of 1881 after introduction/insertion of Section 143A of the Act of 1881 i.e. after 01.09.2018. This provision cannot have its retrospective effect upon the complaints filed prior to 01.09.2018. 26. In view of the discussion made hereinabove, these petitions deserve to be and are hereby allowed".
Title: Mamta Sharma v State and Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 33
Rajasthan High Court granted relief to a Lower Division Clerk whose services were regularized from a later date than the date of completion of her probation period owing to delay on part of the State in conducting the prescribed examination that was required to be cleared for such regularization.
The bench of Justice Arun Monga observed that the petitioner was willing and available throughout for giving the prescribed typing test, however, the department failed to conduct the same within the stipulated timeline owing to delay in construction of computer labs, and preparation of syllabus, rules, and procedures.
Title: Kalyan Choudhary v State of Rajasthan & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 34
The Jodhpur bench of the Rajasthan High Court has reiterated that an unsuccessful candidate cannot later challenge the opinion of experts on the ground that in their self assessment the candidate believes their answer to be correct going against the expert opinion.
In doing so the high court the dismissed an man's plea who could not qualify the Assistant Engineer (Mechanical) exam, but had sought bonus marks or deletion of those questions that he could not attempt claiming that he was not provided with a steam table and psychometric chart.
Justice Arun Monga said, "Trite as it may sound, it is a settled position of law that a candidate, having remained unsuccessful, one cannot later challenge the opinion of the experts on the ground that, in their self-assessment, they believe their answer to be correct rather than what the experts have opined".
Title: Himmat Singh v State of Rajasthan & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 35
Rajasthan High Court has directed the District Magistrate, Dausa to decide a prisoner's application for grant of parole, for the purpose of his wife's delivery, within 4 days.
The bench of Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand opined that as per Rule 23 of the Rajasthan Prisoners Release on Parole Rules, 2021 the application should have been decided within a period of 4 days from the date of receipt.
“Without any justified reason, the application filed by the petitioner has not been decided by the District Magistrate/ District Committee. Aforesaid act of the authorities is not in consonance with the mandatory provisions contained under Rule 23 of the Rule of 2021.”
Title: Gurdeep Singh v State of Rajasthan
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 36
The Jaipur bench of the Rajasthan High Court has reiterated that the purpose of initiating proceedings under Section 82 CrPC is to secure the presence of the accused who is stated to be absconding, and once that purpose was achieved the proceedings are to be withdrawn.
Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand referred to the Supreme Court's decision in Vimlaben Ajitbhai Patel vs. Vatslaben Ashokbhai Patel & Ors. (2008) wherein the apex court had held that the "purpose of initiating proceedings against the accused under Section 82 Cr.P.C. is to procure and secure the presence of the accused. Once the said purpose is achieved, the proceedings shall be withdrawn".
Title: Sunita Dhawan v State of Rajasthan & Anr.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 37
While exercising its inherent powers, the Jaipur bench of the Rajasthan High Court directed the State to grant employment to a widow and a mother of four belonging to the SC category, who stood meritorious in the recruitment process to the post of school lecturer, but was denied employment for having more than two surviving children.
Justice Sameer Jain held that it was imperative to depart from the rigid procedural adherence in the interest of justice since the petitioner's exclusion merely on the ground of having more than 2 children, despite her socio-economic challenges, would violate constitutional guarantees provided under Articles 14 and 16.
Title: Jyoti Parmar v State Institute of Health and Family Welfare & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 38
Rajasthan High Court ruled that posting a 30-week pregnant woman 500 Kms away from her residence despite being 100s of vacancies near her home was highly arbitrary and mechanical exercise or non-exercise of mind that not only violated her right to health but also her right to safe working conditions as well as right to livelihood under Article 21.
“State is not only supposed to act as a model employer, but also as a virtuous litigant. Whereas, in the instant case, the approach adopted by the respondents instead is rather obstructive and oppressive in nature and a complete misuse of dominant status as an employer, apart from abuse of power, to say the least.”
Terming the actions of the State as lack of sensitivity and against very basic principles of being humane, the bench of Justice Arun Monga directed the State to assign the petitioner an alternative place for posting anywhere in her city and extended her date of joining till a decision was taken in this regard.
Title: Sita Ram v State of Rajasthan & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 39
The bench of Justice Arun Monga at the Rajasthan High Court dismissed a petition that challenged State's decision to not grant bonus marks provided for participation in Sports based on petitioner's certificate of Yoga, opining that in a notification dated December 21, 2016, Ministry of Youth Affairs & Sports clarified that since it was not feasible to hold any competitive sports tournaments for Yoga, it could not be termed as Sports.
“A perusal of the above clearly leaves no manner of doubt that even if the Yoga is categorized as Sports as is the assertion of the petitioners, even then no benefit of the same can be given to the petitioners since it is not feasible to hold any competitive sports tournaments of Yoga and thus in strict sense it cannot be termed as sports for the purpose of according benefit of bonus marks.”
Title: Sulochana v State of Rajasthan & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 40
Terming the State's action in transferring an 8-month pregnant nursing officer 320 km away from her current posting as a display of "sheer apathy and callous disregard for basic human dignity", the Rajasthan High Court directed the Health Secretary to sensitize its officers empowered to pass transfer orders.
Justice Arun Monga referred to Section 4(3) of the Maternity Benefit Act 1961, which provides hat a pregnant woman, on request by her, could not be required to do any work by her employer which in any way was likely to interfere with her pregnancy or the normal development of the foetus or was likely to cause miscarriage or adversely affect her health. It was hearing the plea of a woman posted at Sikar in advanced stage of pregnancy challenging an order transferring her to Jodhpur–320 Kms away from her residence.
Title: Devendra Choudhary v State of Rajasthan & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 41
The Jodhpur bench of the Rajasthan High Court has directed the State to take a fresh call on the transfer of 1,116 Assistant Account Officers, who had alleged violation of a Finance Department circular as per which the officers could be transferred "only in special circumstances and in the interest of the state" before completing 4 years with sanction.
The court said this after noting the sheer number of officers who were transferred, at the first instance, indicated that the decision had been made in haste, adding that it was unclear what the special circumstances were which led to passing of such orders. The court also called for a balance between protecting officers from arbitrary action without undermining the authority's power to manage administrative exigencies.
Justice Arun Monga in its order said, "Adverting once again now to the impugned orders, from a reading thereof, it is not borne out as to which of the transferred officials had completed their four years, therefore, necessitating their transfer. Alternatively, nor is it clear which of the officials had to be transferred owing to the special circumstances. The sheer large number i.e. 1,116, in the first flush is indicative that the transfer orders have been passed in great haste. There was possibly no time with the competent officials to either determine the special circumstances qua each of them or to even have the empirical data available before them qua the length of their tenure on their current postings".
Title: Priyansha Gupta v Union of India & Ors.
The Jaipur bench of the Rajasthan High Court has asked the State Police, specifically the officer-in-charge at the Police Headquarters who is handling the issue of online sale of e-cigarettes, to file an affidavit clearly stating what action has been taken so far against online platforms selling e-cigarettes.
While hearing a writ petition, the division bench of Chief Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava and Justice Uma Shanker Vyas observed, "from the contents of the petition, it is vividly clear that there is menace of online platform sale of e-cigarettes".
Calling for an affidavit on the matter the court further directed, "The affidavit is required to be filed by the officer-in-charge in police headquarter, who is dealing with issues relating to online sale of e-cigarettes and fully conversant with the steps which have been taken, action plan, if any, framed and also clearly state as to what action so far against online platforms selling e-cigarettes".
Title: Suo Motu : In the matter of tackling the issue of 'Digital Arrest Scams', Cyber Crimes and saving the innocent people from loosing their money and lives
Terming “Digital Arrest scams” as one of the most insidious forms of cybercrime, Rajasthan High Court took suo motu cognizance of the increasing trend of cybercrimes in India including digital arrest, directing the State and Central Government to submit a report on the steps being taken to curb the offence.
The bench of Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand opined that it was high time to spread awareness about digital arrests having no legal standing under the Indian laws as well as to educate people about the lawful process of arrests in India as well as the rights associated with it. The Court further observed that the RBI along with the Government was also required to develop a mechanism to stop payment transfer of money in such trap transactions.
Title: Ganga Kumari v State of Rajasthan
The Rajasthan High Court has issued notice on a petition challenging a 2023 Circular issued by the State, classifying transgender persons as Other Backward Classes (“OBCs”), instead of providing horizontal reservation to them.
The division bench of Chief Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava and Justice Nupur Bhati asked the Respondent authorities, including State's Department of Social Justice and Empowerment, Department of Personnel and Rajasthan Public Service Commission, to file their response in four weeks.
Title: X and Y v/s State of Rajasthan and Others
The Jaipur bench of the Rajasthan High Court on Wednesday referred to a large bench to decide whether married persons who choose to be in live-in relationships with other individuals without first dissolving their marriage are entitled to seek protection orders from the court.
Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand passed the order after taking note of various judgments of the high court where conflicting views had been taken by single benches, observing that in such a situation the question has to be referred to a Special/Larger Bench so that the controversy is put to rest in accordance with law.
The question referred to special/larger bench is : "Whether a married person living with an unmarried person, without dissolution of his/her marriage or/and whether two married persons with two different marriages living in live-in-relationship, without dissolution of their marriages, are entitled to get protection order from the Court ?"
Title: X and Y v/s State of Rajasthan and Others
Emphasizing that the need of the hour was for the Centre and State government to enact a legislation governing live-in relationships, the Jaipur bench of the Rajasthan High Court on Wednesday directed, that till such a law is enacted, live-in-relationship must be registered by a government established authority or tribunal.
Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand in his order said, "The live-in-relationship agreement is liable to be registered by the Competent authority/ Tribunal, which is required to be established by the Government. Till enactment of the appropriate legislation by the Government, let competent Authority be established in each district of the State to look into the matter of registration of such live-in-relationships, who will address and redress the grievances of such partners/couples who have entered in such relationship and the children being born out therefrom. Let a Website or Webportal be launched in this regard for redressal of the issue arising out of such relationship".
The court further directed that until a legislation is framed by the Centre as well as the State Government, a scheme of statutory nature is required to be formulated in legal format.
Title: Sunil Vyas v Bar Council of Rajasthan & Ors
The Rajasthan High Court has admitted a petition challenging the resolution of the Bar Council of Rajasthan (“BCR”) dated April 16, 2024, which extended the tenure of the elected office bearers of the Bar Association from one year to two years. The court stayed the effect and operation of the resolution and appointed an Administrative Committee to manage the affairs of the Bar till final disposal of the petition.
The division bench of Chief Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava and Justice Munnuri Laxman opined that on a prima facie level, it appeared that the amendment in the bye-laws based on the resolution was a blatant violation of Section 12 of the Rajasthan Societies Registration Act, 1958 (“the Act”) that prescribed a procedure for such alterations in relation to societies.
Accordingly, as an interim order, the operation of the resolution passed by BCR to extend the tenure was stayed, and since the tenure of existing members of the Bar Association had come to an end, an Administrative Committee was appointed to manage the affairs of the Bar till final disposal of the case, comprising following members:
1. Mr. Jagmal Singh Choudhary, Sr. Advocate
2. Dr. Sachin Acharya, Sr. Advocate
3. Mr. G.R. Poonia, Sr. Advocate
The petition was listed on March 17, 2025, for final hearing.
Title: Manju Sharma v State of Rajasthan & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 44
Rajasthan High Court set aside the transfer of a Nurse, 300 Kms away from her current posting, considering that she is the sole earner of her family comprising her mother who was a senior citizen widow, suffering from Alzheimer's and thus requiring medical treatment at current place.
The bench of Justice Arun Monga held that the transfer would not only cause logistical difficulties to her but also adversely affect the timely care of her mother. The Court held that the peculiar situation of the petitioner of bearing the entire financial and caregiving responsibility of her dependent mother would add another layer of hardship in discharge of her duty if she was transferred.
Title: X v State of Rajasthan
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 45
The bench of Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand at the Rajasthan High Court directed Director General of Police, Jaipur and the Principal Secretary, Department of Home, for issuing instructions and guidelines to all the Police Investigating Officers of Rajasthan to conduct the Test identification Parade (“TIP”) of the accused with the victim in cases where the accused was not known to the victim.
The Court highlighted that the names of the accused were given by the victim only based on the names that her relatives had told her after the commission of the offence. It was opined that in absence of a TIP, relying solely on the victim's testimony regarding accused's identification, when there was no other link to connect the accused with the incident, was wholly unsafe.
The Court also pointed out the situation where to pacify and/ or avoid public revolt against the police for non-detection of such crimes, investigating agencies implicate a person who could not be connected with the crime by legally acceptable evidence. It was stated that in the present case too, the Investigating Agency had not discharged their duties properly and had “miserably failed to apprehend or book the real culprits”.
Title: Nathu Lal v State of Rajasthan & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 46
Rajasthan High Court granted relief to the petitioner (Junior Engineer) who was under suspension between 2002 to 2009 due to a criminal case in which he eventually got acquitted, and his service were also restored but was denied the payment of arrears on the ground that his acquittal was merely based on benefit of doubt.
The bench of Justice Arun Monga termed this stance taken by the State as “insipid” and opined that it was only when no evidence was found against the accused that the Court acquitted him. And once acquitted, relying on “benefit of doubt” as a reason to deny him arrears was not only unfair, unjust and arbitrary, but also against the principle of restoring him to his rightful position as was before suspension.
The Court further ruled that even based on equity, since the petitioner had to suffer professional hardship, humiliation and ignominy of suspension, he should not be deprived of legitimate financial entitlements and be compensated fully for the period of unjust suspension.
Title: Ram Chander v the State of Rajasthan
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 47
While staying the transfer of over 1000 officials–where the elected Panchayat bodies were denied the opportunity to exercise their powers under law, the Jodhpur bench of the Rajasthan High Court said that it reflected the State officials' adamancy to not let go of their administrative superiority.
Justice Arun Monga held that such an order reflected that the guidelines as well as the censure that was issued by the high court in Kera Ram v the State of Rajasthan & Ors. (2024) in relation to transfer of Panchayati Raj officials were taken very lightly. It said that despite the ruling in Khera Ram which also issued transfer guidelines for Panchayati Raj officials, there was a "massive transfer drive of more than 1000 Panchayat officials", by exercising of administrative power by the State and "transgressing into the democratic domain" of the elected panchayat bodies.
Title: Rakesh Sen v Smt. Ajab Bano
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 48
The Jodhpur bench of the Rajasthan High Court has held that it was not for the tenant to suggest or show that the landlord did not have any bonafide necessity of the rented premises.
In doing so the court underscored that the necessity of a rented property for bonafide use has to be adjudged from the perspective of the landlord and not the tenant.
The observation was made by Justice Vinit Kumar Mathur who was hearing a petition against the decision of the Rent Appellant Tribunal that had allowed the appeal against the decision of the Rent Tribunal allowing the application for eviction of the tenant-petitioner filed by the landlord-respondent.
Title: Au Small Finance Bank Ltd v Atmaram Bishnoi and Others And Batch
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 49
Expressing surprise and alarm, the Jodhpur bench of the Rajasthan High Court directed the District Collector and Sri Ganganagar's Superintendent of Police to take stern action against a loan defaulter who took unlawful forcible possession of his mortgaged property that was taken over by a bank under the SARFAESI Act.
Justice Vinit Kumar Mathur highlighted that despite the petitioner– AU Small Finance bank approaching the authorities, no action was taken by them. It thus warned that if the authorities do not act it will result in lawlessness which is to be viewed seriously. The court said this after noting that the defaulter had used his "muscle power" to take back possession of the mortgaged property and that nothing had been done till date.
Title: Jugal Kishore & Ors. v State of Rajasthan and other connected petition
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 50
Rajasthan High Court quashed and set aside proceedings that were initiated in 2011 under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (“PF Act”) which already got repealed in 2010 and was followed by the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 (“FSSA”).
The bench of Justice Farjand Ali highlighted that even the cognizance of the offence was taken by Judicial Magistrate under the PF Act who did not bother to see whether the statute under which he was passing the order was even in force or not.
Title: Mohammad Aslam v State of Rajasthan & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 51
Rajasthan High Court allowed petition filed by a petitioner who was denied compassionate appointment on grounds on his previous conviction for causing hurt and wrongful restrain where he was released on probation, ruling that once he was let off on probation, he had to be given benefit of the very reason and the objective of the Probation of Offenders Act (“the Act”).
The bench of Justice Arun Monga held that the intention behind Act was rehabilitation and re-integration of an offender into the society and not granting compassionate appointment to the Petitioner would defeat that purpose.
Title: Hari Singh & Anr. v State of Rajasthan, and other connected petition
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 52
The bench of Justice Farjand Ali at the Rajasthan High Court quashed 23-year-old criminal proceedings for offences alleged under Forest Conservation Act and the Rajasthan Forest Act, in rem against all accused persons including those who didn't approach the court, noting the irretrievable delay in the case which had rendered the trial nugatory.
In doing so the court observed that the long pendency of a criminal complaint without any progress, certainly infringed the "fundamental right of the accused" to a speedy trial.
“In the present case, the original complaint was lodged in the year 2002, and the criminal proceedings have remained pending for over 23 years. Several accused have already passed away, and a significant number remain unserved despite repeated attempts at issuing process. This prolonged stagnation of trial is a glaring violation of the fundamental rights of the accused, as recognized under Article 21 of the Constitution of India...Thus, even for those accused who have not approached this Court, the inherent powers vested in this Court enable it to quash the proceedings suo motu, considering the sheer futility of the prosecution and the irretrievable delay that renders any trial nugatory.”
Title: Anita Devi v State of Rajasthan & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 53
In relation to eligibility of an EWS certificate issued by the government of Haryana to a woman who got married in Rajasthan, the Rajasthan High Court ruled that change of location from Haryana to Rajasthan did not render the petitioner ineligible to seek benefit of the certificate issued by the competent authority.
Justice Arun Monga in his order said, "As for the change of location from Haryana to Rajasthan, it does not render the petitioner ineligible to seek the benefit of the EWS certificate issued by the competent authority".
The court also referred to a coordinate bench's decision in Aman Kumari v State of Rajasthan where the court had observed that a stipulation made by an advertisement that those married into the State would not be entitled to the benefit of OBC, SC, ST & EWS category, was "ex facie contrary" to the very scheme of EWS reservation.
Title: Rajesh Sharma v State of Rajasthan & Ors. and other connected petitions
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 54
While hearing a bunch of petitions challenging transfers of the Panchayati Raj Department, Rajasthan High Court ruled that the requirement of taking consent from the Panchayati Raj Department for such transfers as envisaged under the Rule 8(iii) of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj (Transferred Activities) Rules, 2011 (“the Rules”) was not necessarily pre-facto and was fulfilled even if the consent was taken post-facto.
“No doubt, the approval of the Secretary of Panchayati Raj Department is ex-post facto but the same per-se does not vitiate the requirement of seeking consent in terms of Rule 8(iii) of the Rules of 2011. The compliance envisaged in Rule 8(iii) of the Rules of 2011 does not necessarily have to be prior to passing of the orders. Many a time, the administrative exigencies are such that based on verbal deliberation, administrative orders are passed, subject of course to the post-facto written approval.”
The bench of Justice Arun Monga further opined that it was not necessary to convey such approval to the transferee. However, if the transfer was not approved by the Panchayati Raj Department, it had to be conveyed in writing, both to the department where the services of such officials were deputed and to the official, to enable him to take appropriate remedy in accordance with law.
Title: Sunil Samdaria v/s State Of Rajasthan and another
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 55
Dismissing an advocate's plea challenging the appointment of Padmesh Mishra as Additional Advocate General (AAG) for the state at the Supreme Court, the bench of the Justice Sudesh Bansal at the Rajasthan High Court reiterated that State is free to decide and change the "eligibility criteria" while making appointment of AAG, other law officers unless it is shown as arbitrary.
Notably, Mishra is the son of Justice PK Mishra, Judge of the Supreme Court. The plea claimed that Mishra was appointed as AAG despite not meeting the requisite experience to be eligible for the post in accordance with the State Litigation Policy 2018.
Title: Sushila Devi Jatav versus State of Rajasthan
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 56
The Rajasthan High Court with its Bench at Jaipur comprising of Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand held that departmental proceedings against a delinquent employee must be concluded within a reasonable time frame and preferably within six months in order to avoid inconvenience, loss and prejudice to the rights of such employee. It was observed that in such cases, the duty to have the inquiry concluded within the shortest possible time span falls upon the Employer and it must be ensured that efforts are made to expedite such proceedings.
Title: Sattar Khan v Zila Parishad & Anr.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 57
Rajasthan High Court has ruled that the caste “Teli” that had been included in the Central List of OBCs in the State of Rajasthan could include people irrespective of their religion, be it Hindus or Non-Hindus since the caste drew its name from traditional hereditary occupations whose members belonged to different religions.
The bench of Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand further issued a general mandamus to all State Departments for not denying the benefits of reservation under OBC category to all those Muslim candidates who belonged to the caste that fell in the Gazette Notification issued by the State and attracted benefits under OBC category.
Title: Sardar Mal Yadav v State Elementary Education and Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 58
While hearing a petition wherein no final order was passed by the disciplinary authority pursuant to an inquiry report filed in 2014, Rajasthan High Court observed the lackadaisical attitude of Officers-in-Charge (OCs) and their failure to discharge their duties under Rule 233 of the Rajasthan Law and Legal Affairs Department Manual 1999 (“the Manual”).
The bench of Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand stated that there was a need to streamline and redefine the entire system for the benefit of all the stakeholders, and it was the right and high time for all State Departments to instruct the OCs of all cases to follow their duties under Rule 233 of the Manual in its letter and spirit. The Court also held that if OCs were overburdened, additional appointments be done for speedy disposal of cases.
Taking serious note of the situation, the Court directed the Secretary, State of Rajasthan to file an affidavit detailing formulation of strict guidelines for improvement of situation and directions to all OCs of cases of all State Departments to remain cautious in future with respect to all pending cases before the Court where State Government was a party.
Furthermore, the Advocate General and the Principle Law Secretary were directed to direct all Additional Chief Secretaries, Principal Secretaries, Secretaries and Head of Departments to instruct all Law Officers and OCs of the cases to be present in the Court whenever needed and to keep the Government Counsel updated with progress report and outcome of matters pending at level of departments.
Title: Sardar Mal Yadav v State Elementary Education and Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 58
Rajasthan High Court ruled that every employer, whether State or private, must make serious efforts to conclude departmental inquiry against their employees within a reasonable time period, preferably within 6 (six) months as the outer limit, and if it was not possible due to unavoidable causes, within a reasonable extended period based on the cause and nature of inquiry.
The bench of Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand was hearing a petition wherein the inquiry report in relation to a charge sheet, issued in 2011, was submitted back in 2014, and till date no final order was passed by the Disciplinary Authority. The delinquent employee-petition had also retired in 2025 during the pendency of the petition.
Opining it as a “glaring example of negligence on the part of the State Instrumentalities” and “a shocking state of affairs”, the Court referred to the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal), Rules 1958, wherein the Disciplinary Authority was expected to pass the final order immediately after receiving the inquiry report.
Title: Pukhraj Purohit & Ors. v State of Rajasthan & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 59
The bench of Justice Arun Monga at the Rajasthan High Court rejected a plea by nursing staff who sought bonus marks based on past experience–as given to their colleagues who were appointed in 2008–after noting that the former were appointed only in 2016 based on a revised recruitment result.
In doing so the court said that allowing the petitioners claim, when they did not actually do any physical work, would set a wrong precedent as it would open all past recruitment decisions to challenge by persons who are adversely affected by it. This the court underscored would lead to chaos.
In doing so the court also underscored that a "completed selection process" can't be challenged retrospectively as the principle of finality in recruitment is applicable.
Title: LRs of Late Sanwarmal Sharma v Smt. Deeta Devi & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 60
The bench of Justice Vinit Kuma Mathur at the Rajasthan High Court ruled that the Civil Court had absolute jurisdiction in a suit for partition simplicitor even though partition of an agricultural land was sought for, if there was no dispute relating to the tenancy rights in that suit, in which case the matter to that limited extent had to be referred to the revenue court.
After hearing the contentions, the Court referred to Section 242(1) of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 (“the Act”) which provided that, “If in any suit relating to agricultural land instituted in a civil court, any question regarding tenancy rights arises and such question- has not previously been determined by a revenue court of competent jurisdiction, the civil court shall frame an issue on the plea of tenancy and record to the appropriate revenue court for the decision of that issue only.”
The Court further observed that it was a settled law that where there was no revenue dispute involved, civil court had the jurisdiction to decide the question of partition of properties.
Title: Anandi Lal & Anr. v Shri Dalip Prajapat & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 61
The Jaipur bench of the Rajasthan High Court reiterated that person who is not a member of the SC/ST category cannot claim khatedari or tenancy rights based on adverse possession over a land belonging to a person from SC/ST category and which was purchased from him in violation of Section 42 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act.
Referring to a division bench's decision on the subject, Justice Avneesh Jhingan in his order said:
"The issue is no longer res-integra and has been decided by the Division Bench of this Court in Sita Ram Vs. Board of Revenue reported in [2012 SCC OnLine Raj 2502]. It was held that the person purchasing the land in contravention of Section 42 of the Act of 1955 cannot acquire khatedari rights by the adverse possession".
Title: Sunil Dattatrey v the State of Rajasthan & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 62
Rajasthan High Court has ruled that depriving any employee of their salary without any justification amounted to violation under Articles 21, 23 and 300-A of the Constitution of India.
The bench of Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand was hearing a petition filed by a public employee who was not paid his salary since 2016, for almost 97 months now without any justification, despite providing his services to the State.
The Court opined that the right to salary/wages was so intimately related to the right to life and personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution that the fight to livelihood was an integral part of Article 21 too if the concerned person had limited resources. In cases where the person had sufficient means other than the salary/wages, a different view was possible, but not when the person was wholly and substantially dependent on the salary/wages for livelihood.
Furthermore, the Court also held that for constituting an offence under Article 23 of the Constitution that prohibited “Begar”, a complete denial of wages/salary payable to the person from whom the work was exacted, was not required.
Title: Bharti Sharma v State of Rajasthan & Anr.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 63
Rajasthan High Court quashed an FIR against a daughter (“Petitioner”) who was charged in a case of cheating, on account of the fact that she received some money from her father that was alleged to be received by him under dishonest inducement from the complainant with whom he had entered into an agreement to sale.
The bench of JusticeFarjand Ali held that the rule of vicarious liability did not apply here. Neither there was any allegation of criminal conspiracy by the Petitioner with her father. She was not even alleged in the FIR or the statement of the complainant.
Title: State of Rajasthan v X
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 64
While upholding a man's acquittal by the trial court in a POCSO case, the Jodhpur bench of the Rajasthan High Court held that in cases where the victim, complainant, or the key witnesses turned hostile or failed to support the prosecution's story, then conviction can't be solely based on expert/scientific evidence without supporting testimonies.
Justice Arun Monga noted that the prosecution "merely but heavily, relied on scientific evidence such as DNA and forensic reports". Referring to Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act or Section 39 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Ashiniyam, 2023 the court said that "forensic reports are only corroborative, not conclusive evidence".
The court further said that that the "law, no doubt, enables trial court to rely on expert opinions, however, such opinions are only meant to assist the court and are not binding".
Title: Girdhari Karmachandani v Punjab National Bank & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 65
Rajasthan High Court has ruled that a delinquent employee is the only person who can properly defend himself/herself in departmental proceedings initiated against him/her by the State, and following the death of such delinquent employee during the proceedings, the inquiry cannot continue and the proceedings are abated.
The bench of Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand held,
“Once allegations are made against an employee who is no longer alive, there is no one who can effectively defend those allegations on his behalf…Unless the employee is given a proper opportunity to defend himself, no proceedings can continue to establish the allegations levelled against him. In this case, after the death of the employee, it is impossible to provide an opportunity to defend the allegations, as there is no one who can adequately do so. Therefore, the inquiry cannot continue after the death of the employee in question.”
Title: Suman Bishnoi v State of Rajasthan & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 66
The Rajasthan High Court has ruled that child care leave is akin to a privileged leave, and hence just like the latter, it could not be claimed as a matter of unfettered right. It could be sanctioned for upto 120 days if the administrative discretion warranted, but there was no mandate to grant it for such a period of time.
The bench of Justice Arun Monga held that,
“I am of the opinion that child care leave is since akin to privileged leave, similar parameters will thus apply. Be it privileged or child care leave, as the case maybe, it cannot be claimed as a matter of unfettered right…It is thus the administrative discretion of the competent authority to look into the circumstances and, if the same so warrant, then child care leave “can be” sanctioned up to 120 days and the right to grant of the same is not to be treated and read as if the leave “has to be” granted for 120 days.”
Title: Suresh Kumar v Union of India & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 67
“For the welfare of a child, the burden of past mistakes must be lifted, offering him a fresh start to thrive, free from the weight of stigma…shadows of past transgressions should be expunged...” said the bench of Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand at the Rajasthan High Court while directing the State to reinstate a man to the post of constable whose services were terminated for not disclosing his conviction as a juvenile.
In doing so the court held that “right to be forgotten” for a juvenile by way of destroying records of juvenile delinquency is an absolute right and has to be given full meaning by the State.
It further said that the State is lawfully restrained from seeking any information about the previous record of the juvenile delinquency in cases where the benefit of Section 19 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act 2000 or Section 24 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 was given.
The Court held that such a disclosure would defeat the purpose of the legislation by adversely impacting the rehabilitation as well as the socio-economic stability of the juvenile pushing him/her again towards criminal delinquency.
The Court further held that even when the police verification was conducted with respect to the petitioner, the police officials should have refrained from revealing such information and failing to do so was a gross violation of confidentiality and mandatory provisions of law.
Title: Rakesh Mandola & Anr. v State of Rajasthan
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 68
The Rajasthan High Court has set aside criminal proceedings against customs officers who alleged to have committed assault and grievous hurt to the complainant while interrogating him, for the absence of sanction required under Section 197, CrPC. The court ruled that such excess of power could not be construed as being entirely disconnected from the official duties of the petitioners.
The bench of Justice Manoj Kumar Garg held that,
“While it is clear that the petitioners may have exceeded their powers by beating and torturing the complainant to extract the truth, this cannot be construed as an act entirely disconnected from their official duty. Even though the petitioners acted in excess of their duty, such actions were still within the broader context of their official responsibilities. This excess of power does not negate the protection granted under Section 197 of the Cr.P.C. as the offence remains connected to their official duties.”
Title: Champa Lal Ojha v State of Rajasthan & Anr.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 69
While setting aside charges against a man booked in two FIRs having the same set of accusations, the Rajasthan High Court reiterated that two cases could not run simultaneously for same set of accusation.
The court further observed that trial court while taking cognizance failed to take note of the grounds mentioned in the negative final report filed by the police in relation to the FIR.
Justice Farjand Ali in his order said, "The fact and allegations leveled in FIR No.02/1994 and the FIR No.09/1994 in which offence are exactly the same and are in relation to a transaction which took place on 19.03.1990 whereby a plot was sold to Smt. Saraswati which belonged to Smt. Sugni Devi. This Court feels that the learned Magistrate has not taken care of settled legal proposition that for the same set of accusation, two cases cannot run simultaneously. In the case of T.T. Antony Vs. State of Kerala and Ors., 2001 (6) SCC 181 Hon'ble the Supreme Court has expounded that where the truth, the substance, nature of allegation and transaction is the same then lodging a second FIR cannot be permitted. Having not considered the above issue, the learned trial court has indeed committed an error of law".
Title: Ram Niwas v State of Rajasthan & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 70
The Rajasthan High Court has come to the rescue of a government employee who was denied retirement benefits after the State committed a mistake by accepting his voluntary retirement application, without his completing 15 years of prescribed qualifying service period.
The bench of Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand relied upon the coordinate bench decision of Sudheer Kumar Khana v State of Rajasthan (“Sudheer Kumar Case”) in which it was held that,
“Once an application was filed by the petitioner under Rule 50 seeking premature retirement on the assumption that he had completed 15 years of qualifying service and the respondents once after examining the requirements of Rule 50 of the Rules of 1996 i.e. 15 years' qualifying service as required under the provisions of the Pension Rules came to a conclusion that he fulfills the requirement of qualifying service and grants premature retirement, the State cannot turn around and claim that as the petitioner had not completed the qualifying service, he would not be entitled to grant of retiral benefits.”
Title: Dheeraj Singh Parmar v State of Rajasthan
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 71
Highlighting the time period for which an NDPS accused can be kept in judicial custody without filing of a charge-sheet was dependent on findings of FSL report, the Jaipur bench of the Rajasthan High Court directed Director General of Police Jaipur to ensure that FSL reports in NDPS cases are obtained within 60 days on priority.
Justice Anil Kumar Upman said, "In my thoughtful consideration, FSL report is the most important thing in an NDPS case upon which, entire investigation and trial revolve. In the instant case, FSL report was issued after almost 130 days of receipt of the samples and upon analysis, 'methamphetamine' was detected. As per the prosecution case, contraband weighing 24.75 grams was recovered from the petitioner whereas commercial quantity of 'methamphetamine' prescribed under the Act is 50 Grams. Thus, the maximum time period to complete investigation and to file result of investigation is 60 days. Any further remand to judicial custody beyond 60 days without the chargesheet being presented before the Court will be without the authority of law. Here in this case, charge sheet has been filed on 12.09.2024 whereas FIR has been registered on 20.03.2024 and on the same day, the petitioner was arrested".
Title: Ramesh Bairwa v State of Rajasthan & Other connected application
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 72
The bench of Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand at the Rajasthan High Court has said that compliance of Section 15A of SC/ST Act that required information being sent to complainant before hearing bail application of accused under SC/ST Act, is fulfilled even when such information was sent on mobile via SMS, WhatsApp.
It thus directed Director General of Police and the state's Principle Secretary to instruct all the investigating officers/station house officers of all police stations that for bail filed pleas for SC/ST Act offences whenever the Court directs public prosecutor to send information to complainant/victim/aggrieved party, they shall produce a proof/screenshot of message/text message/WhatsApp Message on record.
The Court further observed that notice was mandatory under Section 15A(3), however, victim's presence during the bail hearing was not mandatory and the choice of such participation could be left to the victim.
S. 47 Registration Act | Time From When Registered Deed Will Operate Can't Obliterate Mandatory Submission Before Cut Off Date: Rajasthan HC
Title: Abhishek Agrawal v Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited & Anr.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 73
In a case concerning LPG distributorship and its registration, the Rajasthan High Court said that it is settled law that the section on when the time from which a registered document operates under Registration Act (Section 47) operates between the concerned parties but it cannot be "stretched to obliterate" the mandate of submitting a registered lease deed on/or before the stipulated cut off date.
The division bench of Justice Shree Chandrashekhar and Justice Kuldeep Mathur in its order said, "The provisions under the Indian Registration Act and the Transfer of Property Act clearly indicate that a lease deed may not be valid so long as it remains unregistered but as soon as it has been registered it takes effect from the date of its execution. This is quite a settled law that section 47 of the Registration Act operates between the parties to the deed and may also affect the rights of third parties. However, the effect of section 47 of the Registration Act cannot be stretched to obliterate the requirement of submitting a registered lease deed/rent deed on or before 24th May 2023".
The Court opined that it was in public interest that the employer, Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited (“BPCL”) adhered to the stipulations made in the advertisements as well as the Manual, and such adherence could not be faulted.
Title: Shakur Shah and another vs. Iliyas and others
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 74
The Rajasthan High Court observed that a Mosque, a place used for religious purposes such as praying Namaz, comes within the definition of 'Waqf' as per Section 3 (r) of the Waqf Act 1995. Thus, disputes related to it can only be adjudicated by the Waqf Tribunal.
A bench of Justice Birendra Kumar held thus while referring to Section 85 of the Waqf Act [Bar of jurisdiction of civil courts], which provides that no civil court, revenue court, or any other authority can hear any case or legal matter related to waqf or waqf property and that such issues have to be determined by a Waqf Tribunal established under the 1995 Act.
Title: Surendra Bisnoi v State of Rajasthan & Ors, and other connected petitions
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 75
Rejecting a batch of pleas by medical students barred from sitting for examinations as they didn't attend the prescribed number of classes due to illness or other reasons, the Rajasthan High Court said that attendance in MBBS courses was mandatory and keeping in mind a healthcare provider's role educational standards can't be degraded.
In doing so the court underscored that without fulfilling the prescribed minimum attendance, it was detrimental to permit the students to proceed to the next year. This the court said while also noting that the importance of maintaining high standards in medical education which directly affects "quality of public healthcare".
Justice Vinit Kumar Mathur said, "In the considered opinion of this Court, attendance in the MBBS examination is crucial. If a student has not acquired the requisite attendance in both theory and practicals, it would be detrimental to allow them to proceed with the course, particularly for the second-year examination. The MBBS degree is intended for those who will eventually treat human beings, making it of significant importance. While passing the order, this Court has kept in mind that the petitioner is pursuing a professional course and, upon obtaining the degree, will be obligated to serve as a doctor. The importance of maintaining the highest standards in medical education cannot be overstated, as it directly affects the quality of healthcare provided to the public at large".
Title: State of Rajasthan & Anr. v Sunita, and other connected appeals
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 76
The Rajasthan High Court dismissed a batch of appeals moved by the State against an order ruling in favour nursing candidates who were meritorious in the reserved category of “40% or more disability in one leg” but were rejected on account of suffering from some other deformity in other leg/body part.
In doing so the court observed act of the State of denying appointment on this ground was bad in law.
Referring to the provisons of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, Rajasthan Rights of Persons with Disability Rules, 2017 and Rajasthan Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Rules, 2011 a division bench of Justice Shree Chandrashekhar and Justice Kuldeep Mathur said:
"We find that the action(s) of appellant-State has resulted in exclusion of eligible and meritorious candidates belonging to the category of “persons with special abilities” and, therefore, the same is contrary to the purpose and object which the legislature intended to achieve by bringing these special beneficial enactments, that is, non-discrimination, full and effective participation and inclusion in society and equality of opportunity".
Title: Warekar Dnyanraj Ganesh & Ors. v the Chairman NEET PG Admission/ Counselling Board 2024
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 77
While hearing a writ petition challenging the Round 3 of Counselling of NEET PG- 2024, the bench of Justice Sameer Jain at the Rajasthan High Court issued notices to the Director, (Public Health), Medical and Health Service, Rajasthan and the Chairman, NEET PG Admission/Counselling Board.
The petition has been filed by the candidates of the NEET PG 2024 who had participated in the counselling process following the examination, alleging that Clause 2(ii) of the Instruction booklet for State PG State Medical PG Seats was violative of Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution.
Title: R. Magadaiah v I.G. CRPF & Anr.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 78
The Jaipur bench of the Rajasthan High Court set aside termination of services of a CRPF constable who was found guilty of entering into the quarters of a fellow constable in the presence of only the latter's wife and young child, and trying to flee when he was asked to come out, on the ground that the imposed punishment was disproportionate.
The bench of Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand held that when the punishment was disproportionate, the Court could interfere under its limited scope of judicial review. It was opined that there had to be fairness in all administrative decisions, especially in imposing punishments that not only impacted the employee but also their family members by depriving the employee of their livelihood.
Can't Disturb Communal Harmony: Rajasthan HC Quashes Notification Creating Village Against Guidelines Barring Names Based On Caste, Religion
Title: Moola Ram v State of Rajasthan & Ors, and other connected petitions
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 79
The Rajasthan High Court has set aside a State notification creating a new revenue village named “Gogaji ki Jaal” in Barmer district, for violating 2009 State guidelines as per which villages could not be named in the name of some person, caste, sub-caste or religion.
Along with this notification, the Court also set aside all similar notifications.
Justice Vinit Kumar Mathur in his order said, "Perusal of amended Clause 4 clearly shows that the State Government has modified the earlier clause 4 of the circular dated 20.08.2009 vide its circular dated 17.02.2025 and Gram Panchayats have now been directed to get a resolution passed by majority in the Gram Sabha and that proposal is required to be sent to the State Government. A bare reading of the provision stated above shows that a newly created village should not be named after any person, caste, sub-caste or religion and in the present batch of writ petition it is named after a person, caste and sub-caste. “Gogaji” is a local deity worshiped by a particular community".
Title: Private Physiotherapy, Nursing & Para Medical Institutions Society v Rajasthan University of Health Sciences
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 80
The Rajasthan High Court sets aside challenge to a notification of State University of Health Sciences that increased affiliation fee of colleges for the academic session 2025-26, after noting that procedure for such increase was duly followed and hence there was no illegality committed.
Justice Vinit Kumar Mathur held that "since the procedure" for increasing the affiliation fees was followed by RUHS by taking recommendations of the Finance Committee and placing the same before the Board of Management, "no illegality" was committed.
Title: X v The State of Rajasthan & Ors.
Justice Arun Monga at the Rajasthan High Court stayed the transfer of a government school lecturer who had filed a sexual harassment complaint against the school Principal.
The petitioner alleged that pursuant to the inquiry conducted in her complaint, the Principal was put in the category of Awaiting Posting Order (“APO”). However, she was "victimized" further after she was also put in the APO category without any fault on her part.
The Centre cleared the appointment of Advocate Maneesh Sharma as a Judge of the Rajasthan High Court.
The Supreme Court collegium had recommended the name of Mr. Sharma for appointment to the High Court in 2021.
Title: Kaushalya Devi v Central Administrative Tribunal
The bench of Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand at the Rajasthan High Court, in an interim order, restrained the Central Administrative Tribunal from taking any coercive action against a woman employed as a peon-multi tasking staff against whom disciplinary proceedings were initiated when she refused to clean ladies toilet claiming that it was not part of her duties.
Title: Madhu Kanwar v State of Rajasthan
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 81
The Rajasthan High Court dismissed a plea seeking quashing of a state notification for appointment of Administrator/Authority of 49 municipalities to look after the day-to-day work of these municipalities, following the expiry of tenure of the existing elected members.
In doing so the court ruled that Section 320 (Exercise of Municipality's power pending its establishment) of Rajasthan Municipalities Act 2009, empowered the State to appoint an officer, committee or authority until the new municipality was established following the expiry of the term of the current one.
Referring to the provision, Justice Vinit Kumar Mathur said, “A bare reading of Section 320 of the Act of 2009 clearly shows that after 'creation' of a Municipality, the State Government is empowered to appoint an officer, committee or authority on its behalf until a Municipality 'established' under the provisions of this Act exercises the powers and discharge the duties and perform the functions of the Municipality. In the present case, since the Municipality established under the law has completed its tenure and till the fresh election takes place and a new Municipality is established in accordance with the provisions of Section 11, the affairs of the Municipality cannot be allowed to be kept in abeyance and, therefore, to perform the day to day affairs and duties of a Municipality, the State Government is competent to appoint an officer, committee or authority to perform the functions of the Municipality till a newly constituted elected member of Municipality is established in accordance with Section 11 of the Act of 2009.”
Title: Saloni Institute of Medical Sciences v the State of Rajasthan
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 82
The Rajasthan High Court issued contempt notice to Rajasthan University of Health Sciences (RUHS) for failing to grant annual affiliation to a college in contravention of a coordinate bench's direction, observing that RUHS was bent upon harassing the college for no good reason.
Justice Vinit Kumar Mathur was hearing a petition by Saloni Institute of Medical Sciences against RUHS, claiming that despite direction of the coordinate bench, its affiliation for the year 2024-25 was withheld.
After considering the arguments and perusing the records, the Court said:
“A bare reading of the order dated 27.08.2024 reveals the inaction on the part of the respondent RUHS and less said the better, the authorities are undermining the orders passed by this Court. Since, the respondents have not issued the orders for annual affiliation of the petitioner-Institution till date for no good reason, therefore, it is a fit case where the suo-motu contempt proceedings are required to be initiated against the respondent RUHS.”
Title: Vikash Kumar v State of Rajasthan & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 83
The Rajasthan High Court has called for development of mechanism in the juvenile justice system for expunging the records of minor offences committed by young persons, to enable easier rehabilitation and prevent "youthful mistakes" from becoming lifelong barriers to personal and professional growth.
In doing so Justice Arun Monga underscored that a punitive approach can permanently brand young persons as criminals for minor mistakes that they may have committed. It thus also reiterated that a mere registration of an FIR does not reduce a citizen to the status of either a convict or of a bad character. The court made the observation in a candidate's plea who was denied appointment in the police, since he had a criminal case as a juvenile even though he was acquitted.
Title: Rajaram v the State of Rajasthan & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 84
Terming the facts of the case as “shocking”, the Rajasthan High Court set aside the dismissal of a head constable, for being the uncle of a man who used an imposter to take part in a race which was part of the constable recruitment process.
Justice Dinesh Mehta perused the records and said that the State was hell-bent on removing the petitioner without there being even an "iota" of evidence against him who was just made a "scapegoat" for simply being related to the delinquent candidate.
After hearing the contentions, and perusing the records, the Court highlighted that all the witnesses had denied petitioner's presence at the location of the race and in this light the fact that the charges were proved against the petitioner could not be countenanced. It was opined that it was apparent that the inquiry officer had given an absolutely erroneous and untenable report based on hypothesis in absence of any material evidence.
Title: GR v State of the Rajasthan
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 85
The Rajasthan High Court refused to issued a writ of habeas corpus on a man's plea alleging that his live-in partner, who appeared to be his real sister and was married to another man, had been illegally detained.
In doing so the court ruled that there was no fundamental right of a person to be in a live-in relationship with a woman legally married to another man, especially when she appeared to be his own sister.
The division bench of Justice Shree Chandrashekhar and Justice Madan Gopal Vyas further emphasized that the Constitution of India does not "sanctify an immoral act" adding that a writ court cannot exercise its extraordinary discretionary powers in a matter which would only sanctify immorality in the society. The court further imposed cost of Rs. 10,000 on the petitioner.
Title: Manoj Sharma v State of Rajasthan
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 86
The Jaipur bench of the Rajasthan High Court set aside a trial court order which made adverse remarks against the concerned circle officer and where the DGP was directed to initiate disciplinary proceedings against the officer for alleged negligence committed during the investigation of a case.
In doing so the court noted that the petitioner-circle officer was not the Investigating Officer in the case and no opportunity of hearing was provided to him before adverse remarks were passed.
Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand observed that it was settled that no one could be condemned unheard, and before passing such adverse remarks that cast stigma on petitioner's service career, the presiding officer was duty bound to afford opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.
Title: Lt. Col. Eklavya Tak v Union of India & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 87
The Rajasthan High Court dismissed a candidate's petition challenging a 1996 Policy on procedure for selection of officers for appointment to permanent commission in Army Dental Corps, after noting that that he had not only participated in the process but had remained unsuccessful three times.
The court thus said that the candidate was thus barred by the principle of acquiescence. It said that the candidate could not prove that the alleged action of the respondent amounted to changing the rules of the game during the selection process nor could he show that any prejudice was caused to interested candidates like him.
The division bench of Justice Chandra Prakash Shrimali and Justice Pushpendra Singh Bhati further observed that in absence of any substantial ground for arguing that the 1996 Policy was arbitrary, discriminatory or prejudicial to the rights of any bona-fide candidate, it was settled that only the legality of the policy and not its wisdom or soundness could be subject of judicial review.
Title: Ajmer Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited & Ors. v Mukesh Kumar Berwa
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 88
The Rajasthan High Court has granted relief of compassionate appointment, in a decade-old matter, to the petitioner, affirming that the policy governing such appointment had to be the one that was existing on the date of demise of the concerned person and not on the date of application filed for such appointment.
The division bench of Justice Munnuri Laxman and Justice Pushpendra Singh Bhati was hearing a special appeal filed by the Ajmer Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited (AVVNL) against the decision of a single judge that had directed the appellants to consider the respondent for compassionate appointment.
“In the present case, the denial of compassionate appointment by the appellant-department without any just cause, coupled with the fact that litigation has been going on for over a decade, shows the that on the one hand, the family has been under bereavement due to sad demise of the family member, who was rather the sole breadwinner of the family, while on the other hand, the inaction on the part of the appellant-department, while declining the compassionate appointment in question, deprived the family of the means of coming out of the penurious state.”
Title: Union of India & Ors. v Smt. Rinky Sharma
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 89
The Rajasthan High Court has dismissed a challenge against an order of the Central Administrative Tribunal that directed the State to grant compassionate appointment to the respondent, who was the married daughter of the deceased employee, whose husband was also employed and earning.
The division bench of Justice Avneesh Jhingan and Justice Pramil Kumar Mathur affirmed CAT's reliance on the full bench decision of the Court in Smt. Heena Sheikh v State of Rajasthan (“Heena Sheikh Case”) in which it was decided that married daughter of a deceased employee was entitled to compassionate appointment.
Title: Chairman and Managing Director, Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited & Ors. v Ram Niwas Sharma & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 90
The Rajasthan High Court held that when an employee was suspended during pendency of proceedings under the Prevention of Corruption Act (“PC Act”) in which he was acquitted, in absence of any departmental proceedings against him, restricting his pay during suspension period to only subsistence allowance amounted to punishing such employee which could not be allowed.
The division bench of Justice Avneesh Jhingan and Justice Pramil Kumar Mathur said:
“The Tribunal rightly concluded that there was no departmental proceedings initiated and after acquittal in the criminal case, there was no occasion to restrict the pay during suspension period to the subsistence allowance. In other words, in absence of any departmental enquiry and any punishment order thereof by the department and after acquittal in criminal case the employee cannot be punished by restricting the pay during the period of suspension.”
Title: Vijayraj v State of Rajasthan and other connected applications
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 91
The Rajasthan High Court denied bail to all eight accused charged under IPC, Rajasthan Public Examination (Prevention of Unfair Means) Act, 1992 and the Rajasthan Public Examination (Prevention of Unfair Means) Amendment Act, 2022 in relation to paper leak of the examination for recruitment for Grade II Teachers.
Justice Farjand Ali observed that the present case was not an isolated instance but a "manifestation of a well-orchestrated racket" aimed at subverting sanctity of public examinations. It was held that given the involvement of multiple individuals out of whom many were yet to be arrested, there existed grave apprehension that granting bail to would significantly impede the ongoing investigation.
“Each apprehended individual has contributed to the discovery of fresh incriminating evidence, leading to further arrests and revelations. Given this evolving nature of the investigation, the premature release of any accused would not only jeopardize the collection of material evidence but may also embolden the principal perpetrators who remain at large.”
Title: M/s Rampabhu Hotels India Private Limited v State of Rajasthan & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 92
The Jaipur bench of the Rajasthan High Court set aside an order passed by the Stamp Collector asking the erstwhile directors of a company to pay Rs. 7 crore as stamp duty for transfer of property in view of transfer of the company's shareholding to a new set of directors.
A division bench of Justice Avneesh Jhingan and Justice Ashutosh Kumar ruled that transfer of shareholding by previous directors to new directors in a company did not impact the ownership of property of that company because the property of the company continued to be so even after the change of directors.
“Transfer of shareholdings by previous directors to the current directors does not impact the ownership of the property of the company. There is fallacy in the contention of counsel for the respondent that by changing directors property of company was transferred by evading the stamp duty and therefore the corporate veil be pierced. The legal status and character of company remained as it is and transfer of shareholding only resulted in change of directors. There was no transfer of property of company for which stamp duty was payable and no case is made out for lifting of corporate veil.”
Title: Satya Narayan v Union of India & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 93
The Jaipur bench of the Rajasthan High Court upheld the dismissal of a CRPF Constable who wilfully remained absent from duty for 65 days beyond the sanctioned leave without any intimation to the authorities and when notice was issued to join back on duty he sent incorrect information of him passing away.
Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand in his order said:
"This Court is of the considered opinion that a man in uniform must maintain greater discipline and the act of remaining unauthorizedly absent from duty is the gravest act of misconduct. Remaining absent from duty, after expiry of sanctioned leaves by a person, belonging to a disciplined force, is fatal".
The court said that the petitioner's conduct reflected that he failed to maintain "devotion" towards his duty and being a member of the disciplined force, such indiscipline on the part of the petitioner "cannot be tolerated".
Title: N.T.P.C. Renewable Energy v The Board of Revenue & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 94
The Rajasthan High Court has said that under the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, revision petition is not maintainable before the Revenue Board against 'ex parte ad-interim' orders passed by subordinate revenue courts and appellate courts.
It thus underscored that Board's revisional power can be exercised only in cases which are "decided" by subordinate revenue court in which no appeal lies either to the Board or to a civil court and where jurisdiction is not properly exercised. It underscored that an ad-interim order cannot be treated as a decided case.
Justice Vinit Kumar Mathur said, “So far as the revisional power of the Board of Revenue provided under Section 230 of the Act is concerned, the same can be exercised in any case “decided” by any subordinate revenue court in which no appeal lies either to the Board or to a civil court and secondly, the power of revision can be exercised on the ground of "jurisdiction" if not properly exercised or exercised with material irregularity. Therefore, in the opinion of this Court, the law mandates the maintainability of the revision petition only in a “decided” case by the subordinate revenue court where no appeal lies and secondly, on the ground of jurisdictional error committed by the lower revenue courts. Further, merely passing of an ad-interim order cannot be said to be a decision on the interim application filed and therefore, the same cannot be treated to come in the category of “a decided case” as per Section 230 of the Act of 1955".
Title: Twinkle Singh & Ors. v the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 95
In a plea by 10 Junior Personal Assistants (Junior PAs) employed at high court seeking promotion as Personal Assistant-cum-Judgment Writer without undergoing efficiency test, the Rajasthan High Court said that an elaborate procedure was provided by an order of the Chief Justice, who is the supreme authority in the matters of appointment.
Noting that Constitution of India recognizes that no one other the Chief Justice should have domain in internal administration of the High Court, the court observed that it would be wrong to direct the Chief Justice to exercise his discretionary powers to relax the Rules and exempt the petitioners from Efficiency Test.
A division bench of Justice Shree Chandrashekhar and Justice Kuldeep Mathur held that Article 229 of the Constitution contemplated full freedom to the Chief Justice of High Courts in appointments of officers and servant to the High Court and their conditions of service, and when there was an elaborate procedure for appointment of Junior PAs, and PAs that provided for an efficiency test, it would be highly improper to issue a direction to the Chief Justice to exercise his discretionary power to relax that procedure.
Title: State of Rajasthan v Abdul Jabbar
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 96
Upholding a 1991 acquittal order of the sessions court, the Rajasthan High Court said that the statement of the witnesses recorded during investigation under Section 161, CrPC cannot be a basis to convict an accused especially for a serious offence like murder.
In doing so the court observed that witness statements under Section 161 are used to merely contradict a witness with their previous statement.
The division bench of Justice Shree Chandrashekhar and Justice Yogendra Kumar Purohit in its order said:
"This we need to keep in mind that the statement of the witnesses recorded in course of the investigation under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure cannot be a basis to convict the accused and that too for a serious offence of murder. The statement of a witness under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is used merely to contradict a witness with his previous statement. Therefore, the stand taken by the revisionist (informant in the case) that the prosecution witnesses made cogent statements before the police and that shall be sufficient to record conviction of Abdul Jabbar cannot be accepted".
Rajasthan High Court Quashes Medical Board's Report Declaring Woman Unfit To Be Constable Due To 'Unfounded Assumption' About Birthmark
Title: Ramkala Varma v Union of India & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 97
The Rajasthan High Court set aside a report of the Medical Board and a review report declaring a woman candidate "unfit" for the post of constable in Central Armed Police Forces due to a congenital melanocytic nevus mark (birthmark) on her back which was declared as non-contagious and medically insignificant by an independent expert.
In doing so the court observed that the presumptions made by the medical board about the petitioner's birthmark were unsubstantiated and cannot be valid ground for the rejection of her candidature. It thus directed that she should be granted the same opportunity as other similarly situated candidates who participated in the said 2024 recruitment process.
Justice Sameer Jain in his order highlighted that the opinion of the medical board was legally unsustainable and in the absence of "any medical or logical reasoning" could hence be subjected to judicial review.
Title: Managing Committee & Anr. v Dr. Vijay Laxmi & Anr.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 98
The Rajasthan High Court modified an order passed by the State Non-Government Educational Institutions Tribunal which directed a college to grant two annual increments to an Economic lecturer from the date when she completed her Ph.D in 1998, after noting that the latter had raised demand for benefits only in 2016.
In doing so the court observed when the lecturer did not make any written application for benefits of arrears after passing her Ph.D Degree, there was no occasion for the Tribunal to issue directions to the college management to grant her two annual increments with effect from the date when she passed and completed her Ph.D Degree.
Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand in his order observed that the lecturer "remained silent" from 1998 to 2016 without making any request or application for grant for benefits and had herself caused delay in approaching the Tribunal.
Title: M/s Mewar Associates v the State of Rajasthan & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 99
The Rajasthan High Court set aside a commercial court's order passed against a company whose contract for constructing a canal was terminated by the State for allegedly not completing the work.
In doing so the division bench of Justice Shree Chandrashekhar and Justice Madan Gopal Vyas noted that the commercial court's order was erroneous and based on assumptions as it did not consider the non-performance of the Employer's obligation which went to the "root of the matter".
The court also observed that the contractor had demonstrated before the commercial court the difficulties faced in executing the work and this could not have been ignored on a specious plea that the possession of land was given to the contractor. The court thus underscored that "termination of contract during subsistence of period of completion of work was illegal" and that the employer unilaterally imposed penalty on the contractor of over Rs 25 Lakh.
Title: Saurendra v Bhugani & Anr.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 100
While dismissing a challenge to trial court's dismissal of an appeal barred by two and half years, Rajasthan High Court observed that it could not excuse the delay only on the grounds that the petitioner was not informed by his counsel about the order passed by the lower court, when no justification was provided on his failure to ask about the status of his case from his counsel.
The bench of Justice Manoj Kumar Garg was hearing a revision petition filed by a husband (“petitioner”) against whom order of maintenance was passed in July 2023. The petitioner had filed an appeal against this order in 2025 which was barred by two and half years and hence was dismissed by the trial court on grounds of delay.
Title: Ram Niwas & Anr. v State of Rajasthan & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 101
The bench of Justice Dinesh Mehta at the Rajasthan High Court rejected petitions filed by employees of Department of Agriculture, Rajasthan (“State”) whose transfer from the cadre of Civil Engineers (Diploma Holders) to Civil Engineers (Degree Holders) was revoked, on the ground that such benefit under Rajasthan Subordinate Engineering (Building and Roads Branch) Service Rules, 1973 (“the Rules”) was not for a candidate who had both diploma and degree at the time of appointment but rather for those who acquired the degree during service.
“A person who already had both - Degree and Diploma can well vie for the posts earmarked for Degree Holders as well as Diploma Holders, but he cannot move rather pole vault in the category of persons who are directly appointed as Degree Holders, unless he acquires the degree or AMIE after his/her appointment. A candidate who was having diploma at the time of appointment and who acquires degree during his service alone can take benefit of clause (d) of proviso to Rule 6 of the Rules of 1973.”
Title: Dr. Saroj Meena v State of Rajasthan & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 102
The bench of Justice Arun Monga at the Rajasthan High Court has ruled that the 45-day time period under Clause 11 of the Department of Personnel Circular dated April 5, 2021 (“Clause 11”), was not meant to curtail the validity of the waiting list to less than 6 months even when the recommendations from the waiting list were not made within the stipulated timeline.
Clause 11 of the DoP Circular dated April 5, 2021, laid down as follows, “the waiting list remains in force for six months from the date of issuance of the main list. After the expiry of this six-month period, neither can the department request names from the waiting list nor can the commission recommend names…In the future, all administrative departments must ensure that information regarding candidates from the main list who do not assume charge is received in a timely manner, and the commission and board are informed of the department's request for recommendations from the waiting list at least 45 days before the expiry of the six-month period from the issuance of the main list.”
Title: Jagdish Prasad v the State of Rajasthan & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 103
Rajasthan High Court has ruled that a writ petition does not ordinarily lie against a charge-sheet issued in disciplinary proceedings unless it was established that the same was issued by an authority that was not competent to initiate the disciplinary proceedings.
The bench of Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand opined that charge-sheet could not be interfered with by the Court in a light or routine manner, and instead of seeking quashing of the same at the initial stage, the delinquent employee should submit a reply before the disciplinary authority and wait for conclusion of the proceedings.
Title: Smt. Basanti Devi v State of Rajasthan & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 104
While reiterating that discriminating between regular females employees and those on contractual basis, by denying complete 180 days of maternity leaves to the latter was violative of Article 14 and 21, Rajasthan High Court directed the State to pay additional salary (with interest @ 9% p.a.) of remaining period to the petitioner who was granted only 2 months' maternity leave when applied for in 2008.
The bench of Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand opined that a mother is a mother irrespective of being employed on a regular basis or on contractual basis and newborn babies of contractual workers also had the same right to life as those of regular employees.
Title: Ramniwas v State of Rajasthan
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 105
While granting bail to the husband-accused in wife's suicide case, the Rajasthan High Court ruled that even though as per the prosecution the husband used to beat the wife, and misbehaved with her, there was no direct evidence to show that he did any act to instigate or aid his wife's suicide.
The bench of Justice Kuldeep Mathur observed that it was a settled law that abetment to suicide involved a mental process of instigating a person or intentionally aiding someone in doing that act. Without there being a positive act on the husband's part reflecting such instigation or aid towards his wife's suicide, the charge of abetment to suicide could not sustain.
Title: Dr. Sabyasachi Swain v Malviya National Institute of Technology & Anr.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 106
Rajasthan High Court dismissed the petition filed by a candidate whose appointment was cancelled by Malviya National Institute of Technology (“MNIT”) after it was found that he incorrectly submitted the date of his Ph.D completion, and in fact was not possessing the qualification on the last date of application submission.
The bench of Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand also opined that there could not be any waiver or relaxation in the terms and conditions of the advertisement unless the power of such relaxation was duly reserved in the relevant rules and/or in the advertisement. Furthermore, exercise of such power had to be done with vide publicity by indicating in the advertisement so that potential beneficiaries get the opportunity to apply and compete.
“A large number of such candidates may not have applied adhering to the statutory rules, terms and conditions of the advertisement and considering themselves to be ineligible. There is no obligation on the part of the Court to protect an illegal appointment, the extra-ordinary power of this Court cannot be utilized in such like matters and the same can be used only in appropriate cases to advance the cause of justice so that none can defeat the rights of others and create arbitrariness.”
Title: Shri Pankaj Vasita v State of Rajasthan & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 107
The Rajasthan High Court has directed the State to grant appointment to the petitioner, who had 90% hearing impairment and had applied for the post of Safai Karamchari in 2018 but due to some software error was not considered for the draw of lots under the PwD category, resulting in his non-appointment.
Justice Arun Monga opined that the petitioner's appointment might appear unfair since he did not participate in the draw of lots for the post under PwD category, however, such were the vagaries of litigation in which sometimes candidates fetch fortuitous benefits.
“…this Court is conscious of the fact that the petitioner did not participate in the draw of lots, and therefore, it may appear to be unfair that without participating in the draw of lots, he is being given benefit by virtue of the mandamus of this Court of being appointed on the post. Such are the vagaries of the litigation that sometimes, it results in fortuitous benefits in favour of the candidates as is the case herein, coupled with the fact that petitioner deserves humanitarian outlook being a disabled person.”
Title: Rajasthan Sevanivrat Police Kalyan Sansthan v State of Rajasthan & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 108
The Rajasthan High Court has suggested to the State to set up an expert committee to examine grievances raised by retired government employees claiming that the 14-year period after which full pension is to be restored under the Rajasthan Civil Services (Commutation of Pension) Rules was leading to financial loss and needs reworking.
A division bench of Chief Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava and Justice Bhuwan Goyal in its order said, "Taking into consideration the nature of exercise required to be undertaken which involves financial implications also, the State may constitute a Committee of Experts which shall examine the grievance of the pensioners-petitioners. The Committee may submit its recommendations to the State and it will be open for the State to take such decision as it considers appropriate in the matters".
Title: Jitendra Kumar Nirvan v Central Government Industrial Tribunal and Anr.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 109
The Rajasthan High Court has affirmed that normally a court shall seek expert opinion under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act when it has to compare admitted and disputed signatures.
However it can refuse such expert opinion only if there are "no doubts regarding the genuineness" of the signatures after comparison.
Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand referred to Section 45 which provides that the Court can call for evidence of expert to form an opinion regarding the genuineness of signatures and handwriting which are relied on by one party and disputed by another party. It however said that the power to seek expert opinion under Section 45 of the Act, 1872 is discretionary and depends on facts of each case, adding that the Court under Section 73 can itself compare the signatures or handwriting.
However, Justice Dhand observed that the Supreme Court has time and again cautioned that Court cannot act as an expert in all the cases; unless it is glaringly clear that the signatures are same or are different, the Court should normally call for an opinion from the expert.
Title: Bhajan Lal & Anr. v State of Rajasthan & Anr.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 110
While refusing to quash an FIR registered for non-compoundable offences of kidnapping, theft after the parties had entered into an amicable settlement, the Rajasthan High Court underscored that permitting quashing of such cases based on compromise would undermine the very purpose of criminal law and embolden offenders.
In doing so the court underscored that compounding of such offences would set a "dangerous precedent" wherein accused can evade justice through monetary settlements.
Justice Farjand Ali observed that the investigation in the matter had established a "prima facie" case against the accused wherein the allegations were backed by medical evidences & witness testimonies.
Title: Shri Manish Kumar Balwani & Ors. v Bank of Baroda & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 111
Rajasthan High Court affirmed that in cases where there was more than one delinquent employee with similar or common charges, composite disciplinary proceedings could take place against them only if the competent and disciplinary authorities of all such delinquent employees were the same.
In case such authorities were different for all employees, the jurisdiction of one could not be snatched by another.
Furthermore, the bench of Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand highlighted that it was a settled position of law that if the documents annexed with the charge sheet were allowed to be inspected by the delinquent employees, non-supply of such documents by the State would not vitiate the proceedings.
Title: Maa Sai School v Shanti Lal & Ors, and other connected Cross Objection
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 112
The Rajasthan High Court affirmed that in case of death of an individual in an accident, the compensation awarded under the Motor Vehicles Act 1988 towards the head Consortium is not limited to the deceased's parents but also payable to their siblings.
The court thus observed that while no amount of money can compensate parents and siblings of the deceased however it is the court's duty to award just compensation.
Referring to various Supreme Court decisions Justice Dr. Nupur Bhati in her order underscored, "This Court is also of the view that losing a child in an accident is an unfathomable tragedy for the parents as well as his/ her siblings. The anguish and grief that accompany such a loss are profound and enduring leaving the parents and the siblings grappling with emotions that often defy description. In a case of death of a child, no amount of money can compensate the parents as well as siblings of the deceased child however, it is the duty of the Court to award just compensation".
Title: Shyam Singh v State of Rajasthan & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 113
The Rajasthan High Court has reaffirmed that before initiating proceeding under Section 145 CrPC pertaining to procedure for dispute over land which may breach peace, circumstances suggesting imminent danger of breach of peace or alike situations to presume such instant threat has to be shown with cogent and reliable material.
In doing so the court also reiterated that there cannot be a vague assertion on such circumstances and be proved through strong material.
Justice Farjand Ali after referring to the provisions said, “From bare perusal of these Sections, this Court feels that before initiating a proceeding under Section 145 Cr.P.C. or moving an application under Section 146(1) of the Cr.P.C., circumstances suggesting imminent danger of breach of peace or like circumstance to presume instant threat to public peace and tranquility has to be shown with the assistance of cogent and reliable material. It should not be a vague or bald assertion rather should be supported with strong material. The law in respect of proceeding under Sections 145 & 146 Cr.P.C. is no more res integra that before initiating any proceeding under Sections 145 & 146 Cr.P.C. there has to be a serious question of possession and a situation where it is not comprehensible as to which party was in possession of the land in question at the relevant point of time or the circumstances suggesting that parties are bent upon to take forcible possession of the immovable property and therefore, there is an imminent danger to public peace and tranquility.”
Title: Heer Kanwar v State of Rajasthan & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 114
Rajasthan High Court allowed the petition filed by an individual who was allotted a land by the State in 2018 for which he had deposited full amount. However, since that amount was embezzled by the concerned State officer of the department, the name of the petitioner was still not entered into the revenue records in relation to that land.
The bench of Justice Vinit Kumar Mathur opined that since it was an admitted fact by the State that the land was allotted to the petitioner for which he had also deposited full amount, there was no reason for not entering his name in the revenue records on grounds of embezzlement by State's official.
Title: Bhaka Ram v State of Rajasthan & Ors., and other connected petitions
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 115
Noting multiple “social evils” particularly in the western part of Rajasthan which is stated to include social boycotts, alleged illegal activities by Khap Panchayats, caste discrimination, honour killings, taboo against love marriages, exorcisms etc., the high court constituted a 5-member commission to conduct a ground study of various villages.
Justice Farjand Ali opined that the issue shall be dealt with in two phases wherein in the first phase, there would be an endeavour to identity the malady, and the in next phase, work shall be done towards eliminating or curbing those evil practices.
“These social evils continue to plague communities, causing immense harm to individuals and hindering social progress. Addressing these issues is imperative for fostering a just and equitable society...It is felt apt to appoint Court Commissioners to thoroughly investigate the ground reality of the situation and this commission shall visit different villages to identify the concerns associated with this issue," it said.
Title: Naresh Singh v State of Rajasthan & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 116
The Rajasthan High Court issued guidelines to be followed by competent authorities/State's head of departments in cases where delinquent employees were suspended either in contemplation of or pending departmental proceedings under Rule 13 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control, and Appeal) Rules.
Justice Arun Monga directed the State to ensure that all the competent authorities that were vested with the power to suspend, adhere to a reasonable time limit of 30 days from the date of the suspension order, to initiate disciplinary proceedings by issuing a charge sheet or show cause notice.
Title: Lal Chand Jindal v Regional Manager
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 117
Rajasthan High Court has set aside the order of the Central Industrial Tribunal (“CIT”) that did not taken into consideration Sundays and other paid holidays while calculating the service period of a Bank of Baroda employee.
The bench of Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand relied upon Section 25-B(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, (the “Act”) as well as the Supreme Court decision in the case of Workmen of American Express International Banking Corporation vs. Management of American Express International Banking Corporation (the “Case”) in which it was held that Sundays and other paid holidays should be taken into account for treating continuous service of the workman.
Title: Sudershan v State of Rajasthan & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 118
Dismissing a government employee's plea challenging a penalty which stopped three annual grade increments as well as rejection of appeal and review petitions, the Rajasthan High Court observed that his plea was barred by delay of over two decades.
Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand in his order said,
"It appears that the petitioner was sleeping over the matter for more than two decades and all of sudden, he woke up after twenty years and approached this Court without giving any plausible explanation in the instant writ petition about the aforesaid inordinate delay".
Title: Santosh Devi v State of Rajasthan & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 119
The Rajasthan High Court has direct the State authorities to appoint a woman to the post of Asha Sahyogini at Anganwadi Centre Mandela who was although selected but was denied the post by issuing fresh advertisement that too without cancelling the earlier selection process.
Before the high court the respondents claimed that the petitioner is not eligible on the eligibility on the ground of her not being resident of same village where she has to work as Asha Sahyogini.
Justice Arun Monga opined that it was a settled law that eligibility of a candidate had to be considered at the threshold of the selection process and not after a candidate was declared successful.
Title: Rajani Products v Bhagwan Das Harwani & Anr.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 120
Rajasthan High Court has held that in matters of blatant violation of intellectual property rights, a prompt injunction order has to be granted to protect not only the interest of the aggrieved but also of the public at large.
The bench of Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand thus allowed the temporary injunction application filed by the firm Rajani Products over alleged infringement of its registered trademark for the word “Swastik”.
Title: Radha v the State of Rajasthan & Anr.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 121
The Rajasthan High Court directed the appointment of a woman as a clerk, who scored more marks compared to candidates in fourth waiting list but was denied appointment on the ground that after issuance of three supplementary select lists and believing the process to be over, she took back her original documents signing a pre-typed affidavit stating that she won't raise any claim to the post in future.
Justice Arun Monga held that the State itself created a situation, by retaining her original documents inordinately, that the petitioner was compelled to seek return of those documents to be able to apply for other posts. Furthermore, the purpose for which the documents were retained i.e. verification, was already completed.
Title: Prahlad Sahai Meena v Chief Executive Officer, Admn. Khadi and Village Industries Commission
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 122
The Rajasthan High Court has quashed an order withdrawing regularization of a government employee due to non-fufilment of educational qualification, after noting that the order was not only against the categorical directions of the court's division bench which was upheld by Supreme Court but also violated judicial precedents.
In doing so the court found that the issue of the petitioner's qualification was not raised during the first round of litigation. The court further said that the failure to raise this issue during the earlier stages of litigation renders the subsequent invocation of the qualification requirements "as an afterthought" and "unworthy of judicial consideration at this stage".
Justice Sameer Jain opined that it was a settled position of law that the terms of employment, including its qualifications, decided at the time of appointment and joining were relevant and had to be applied to all similarly situated persons in a consistent and non-retroactive manner.
Title: Sharda Devi Chhajer v. Union of India and others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 123
The Rajasthan High Court stated that the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) lacks jurisdiction to issue income tax reassessment notices under section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
The Bench of Justice Pushpendra Singh Bhati and Munnuri Laxman observed that “the JAO shall not have the jurisdiction to issue notices under Section 148 of the Act of 1961, as it would not only render Section 151A weak, but may also lead to its diminishing activation.”
The bench pointed out that Section 151A of the Act of 1961 deals with the assessment, reassessment and re computation provided in Sections 147 & 148 of the Act of 1961, and therefore, the same has to be faceless and the Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO) has to have an exclusive jurisdiction to issue the notices.
The bench further that the FAO has been assigned specific jurisdiction, and the Scheme also clearly indicates that the FAO has to be the jurisdictional authority. Also, the concurrent jurisdiction of FAO and the JAO, if accepted, would defeat the very purpose of statutory provisions i.e. Sections 151A & 144B of the Act of 1961.
Title: Vikram Singh Indroi & Ors. v State of Rajasthan & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 124
The Rajasthan High Court has permitted six men, having multiple FIRs registered against them for alleged financial crimes, to attend pending criminal trials through video conferencing noting that it may not be feasible for the accused to be physically present at multiple locations simultaneously.
In doing so the bench of Justice Farjand Ali observed that as per Section 273 CrPC there is no legal impediment if the accused is represented by his counsel.
Pointing to amendments made by Gujarat and Jharkhand to the provision allowing appearance through electronic video linkage, the court said it expects the State Government to consider amending the CrPC providing that in cases where accused is in judicial custody, and his personal appearance is not mandatory, proceedings may continue in his counsel's presence; where presence is necessary the jail authorities ensure accused's availability through VC.
Title: M/s Fortune Infovision Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. v Commissioner of Income Tax
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 125
Rajasthan High Court set aside prosecution under Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”), against the petitioner-company whose business activity related to e-commerce transactions, and owing to delay on part of the companies like Amazon, Naaptol, Ebay, etc. in submitting the bills, the petitioner got delayed by almost 10 months in submitting the deducted TDS.
The division bench of Justice Maneesh Sharma and Justice Avneesh Jhingan held that since the TDS was deposited voluntarily by the petitioner, that too along with interest for delay, no case was made out against the petitioner-company.
The Court opined that it was a settled proposition that penal proceedings could not be initiated merely because it was lawful to do so unless the conduct of the assessee was malicious.
Title: Rajesh Kumar v State of Rajasthan & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 126
The Rajasthan High Court set aside the penalty of censure imposed on a school teacher in relation to a charge that the12th Board Exam result in Chemistry of the concerned school remained below the standard fixed by the Department of Education.
Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand observed that "there was no allegation that the result of the concerned school dropped due to commission or omission on part of the petitioner" in which case, he could not have been penalized under Rule 17 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958 (“the Rules”).
"The result remained below the norms fixed by the Department of Education, may be for several reasons and without arriving at a finding that the result came down due to commission or omission on the part of the petitioner, the petitioner could not have been penalized under Rule 17 of the Rules of 1958," it said.
Title: Management Committee, Bharatiya Vidya Bhavan Vidyashram & Anr.v Rameshwar Lal Meena & Anr., and other connected petitions
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 127
Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand at the Rajasthan High Court directed reinstatement of hostel-mess workers of Bharatiya Vidya Bhawan Vidyashram school–run by the Bharatiya Vidya Bhawan educational trust–who were terminated without following the prescribed procedure, ruling that a decision to close the hostel mess did not amount to abolition of the post.
In doing so the court underscored that procedure as per Section 18 of the Rajasthan Non- Government Educational Institutions Act, 1989 was applicable which was not followed in the present case as a termination order of an employee of a recognized institution can be passed only after holding departmental enquiry and with prior permission of Director of Education.
The court however said reinstatement of the employees would not necessarily resulted in payment of 50% back wages as sought by them. It thus said that in the present case the employees could not prove that they remained unemployed during the period of their termination from service.
Title: Gas Authority of India Limited versus M/s Mahima Real Estate (P) Limited
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 128
The Rajasthan High Court bench of Justice Narendra Singh Dhaddha has held that the Executing Court had committed an error in directing to furnish the transfer certificate for executing an award when it already had jurisdiction to hear the application.
Court said that when the property was situated in Jaipur, the executing court had jurisdiction to entertain the execution application. So, the orders dated 12.10.2018 and 13.03.2019 passed by the Executing Court deserve to be set aside, the court added.
Title: Mohammad Salim & Ors. v Abdul Kayyum & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 129
Rajasthan High Court set aside an order of the Trial Court that did not take on record an unregistered partition deed in a suit for permanent injunction, observing that the petitioner could reply upon the partition deed to the extent for collateral purpose pursuant to payment of stamp duty, penalty and proof of relevancy.
The bench of Dr. Justice Nupur Bhati relied upon the Supreme Court decision in the case of Sita Ram Bharma v Ramavtar Bharma and opined that the Apex Court had held that,
“Hon'ble Apex Court also pondered on the aspect that whether a document which is inadmissible in evidence could have been used for any collateral purpose and held that in a suit for partition, an unregistered document can be relied upon for collateral purpose i.e. severancy of title, nature of possession of various shares but not for the primary purpose i.e. division of joint properties by metes and bounds.”
Title: Ganesh Narayan Nayak & Anr. v State of Rajasthan & Anr., and other connected petitions
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 130
Finding various procedural lapses, the Rajasthan High Court quashed a 2017 complaint under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act highlighting that the case was filed when a drug sample had purportedly failed the dissolution test even though the same had an active ingredient which was within the standard limits.
In doing so Justice Farjand Ali observed that as per the prescribed guidelines and Supreme Court's decisions, such a defect was a "minor defect" for which prosecution is impermissible. It was observed that a delayed dissolution did not render the drug useless as it merely implied a slower release of the active content without affecting its efficacy.
Among other lapses the court noted that the Drugs Control Officer had failed to comply with the statutory requirement under Section 25(3) which mandates sending a portion of the sample to the manufacturer for reanalysis in case of a disputed report.
Title: IN RE: “Beat the Heatwave and Climatic Change to Save the Life of Public at Large” v. Union of India
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 131
In the wake of the prevailing heatwave crisis, the Rajasthan High Court has taken suo motu cognizance to find out speedy solutions to “save citizens” from the scorching heatwave condition in the state which poses as life threatening to the citizens, especially the vulnerable populations like elderly people, children, outdoor workers and those without access to cooling.
Highlighting the abject inaction of the state officials to formulate countermeasures to combat the extreme climate and reprimanding them for “sleeping over the current emergent situation of heatwaves”, Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand remarked,
“The people of the State are suffering from extreme heatwaves and heat strokes. Citizens of the State cannot be treated as cattle. Every human being as well as every living being, be they animals or birds, has a right to life. This Court cannot shut its eyes to the poor functioning of State officials in such emergent circumstances. A welfare State and its officials cannot be allowed to escape from their duties and liabilities arising from any casualties caused in the State due to extreme heatwave situation.”
Officers-In-Charge Handling Department Cases Casually: Rajasthan HC Suggests Improvement Measures, Warns Of Imposing Cost On Erring Officials
Title: Badri Narayan Sharma v State of Rajasthan & Anr.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 132
The Rajasthan High Court expressed its "pain" over “condemnable negligence and lethargic attitude” of Officers-in-Charge of various departments in not providing the original case file to their respective government counsels observing that it "hampers the process of providing justice to the litigants”.
In doing so Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand issued important measures for speeding up cases noting that the same are treated with a lack of seriousness and urgency by the Officers in Charge for reasons best known to them. The court emphasized the improvement can be be through enhanced coordination between departments, continuous training and adoption of technology such as Artificial Intelligence.
It thus issued notice to various officials in the state government to the effect that the Officers-in-Charge shall perform all the duties and work, assigned and specified to them from time to time so that unnecessarily delay is not caused. It also said that if sufficient assistance is not provided to the court by departments, cost would be imposed which would be recovered from the pocket of the "erring/defaulting officer, after following due process of law".
Title: Kiran Yadav v the State of Rajasthan & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 133
The Rajasthan High Court rejected a petition filed by an candidate for appointment to the post of PT Instructor, who had cleared the qualifying exam only in "re-evaluation", the result of which was declared after the original result of the written exam for the post was conducted.
Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand relied upon precedents to hold that the result of re-evaluation could not relate back to the date of original declaration of result, and hence, one cannot claim themselves to be eligible for the advertised post since they were declared successful in the qualifying exam only after the submission of the application form.
"There is no contradiction in views of the Hon'ble Apex Court, on the issue involved in these writ petitions and the only view that holds the field is that the re-evaluation result would not relate back to the date of original declaration of result. Hence, one cannot claim himself/ herself as eligible for the advertised post, as he or she had been declared as “pass” after the last for submission of their application form".
Internship Isn't Employment: Rajasthan HC Rejects Plea For Bonus Marks For Internship During Covid-19 To Seek Appointment As Nursing Officer
Title: Pritika Gahlot & Ors. v the State of Rajasthan & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 134
The Rajasthan High Court rejected a plea moved by various students pursuing diploma in General Nursing and Midwifery course, who had interned during Covid-19 pandemic period, and had thus sought bonus marks as provided to Covid Health Assistant (CHA) for appointment to the post of Nursing Officer.
Justice Arun Monga opined that internship being an integral part of the academic curriculum, without which the diploma could not be granted, could not be termed as an employment but rather a continuation of the student-hood. Hence, on this ground, the petitioners were not entitled to seek benefits of bonus marks claiming to be under employment.
Title: Smt. Vidya Devi v State of Rajasthan & Ors., and other connected petitions
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 135
Rajasthan High Court has expressed surprise and shock over non-compliance of its order for over a decade by the State, and directed release of the petitioners' encashment of privileged leaves within a period of 3 months. The Court cautioned that non-compliance of the order shall be viewed seriously and followed by disciplinary actions against defaulting officers.
Opining the act of the State as contemptuous, the bench of Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand observed that the contempt of the Court's order was a serious legal infraction that struck at the sole of justice, eroding public confidence in the judicial system. It was held that a contemnor not only disrespected the specific order but directly questioned the court's ability to uphold rule of law.
“This Court is constrained to observe that the instant case is a classic and glaring textbook example of obstination exhibited by the State officials, who consider themselves to be above and beyond the reach of law. Non-compliance of the order dated 06.10.2015, even after a lapse of almost a decade is shocking and prima facie contemptuous.”
Title: Giriraj Pugalia v Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 136
Rajasthan High Court denied interference with initiation of proceedings under Section 153C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”) that were alleged to be initiated merely based on certain WhatsApp Chats, observing that the information in the chats were completely corroborated by specific transactions and hence, the said chat could be considered to be falling under the definition of “other documents” under Section 153C.
The division bench of Justice Pushpendra Singh Bhati and Justice Chandra Prakash Shrimali ruled that the ambit of Section 153C was not to restrict the proceedings in relation to 'other person' arising out of Section 153A but to enable such invocation such that in case there was any connecting evidence which was specific and corroborated by facts, no escape was possible for such 'other person'.
Title: State of Rajasthan v Vikram Singh Indroi
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 137
The Rajasthan High Court has rectified an earlier order where it had asked the state government to consider amending CrPC to provide for appearance of accused through video conferencing to attend trials, after the State moved a plea stating that Section 273 CrPC had already been amended and has been duly notified.
For context, the court had in its March 7 order had permitted six men, having multiple FIRs registered against them for alleged financial crimes, to attend pending criminal trials through video conferencing noting that it may not be feasible for the accused to be physically present at multiple locations simultaneously. In doing so the court had observed therein that as per Section 273 CrPC there is no legal impediment if the accused is represented by his counsel.
Title: Bharat Kumar v Rajasthan Rajya Vidhyut Prasaran Nigam Ltd. & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 138
The Rajasthan High Court has asked the State Electricity Transmission Corporation to consider the plea for compassionate appointment of a man, who lost his serving father back in the year 1997. The man was only 2 years old at the time.
Ordinarily, compassionate appointment is an "immediate relief" to the family of a deceased government servant, mitigating the financial distress caused by the loss of the breadwinner. However, in this case, Court directed that the relief be considered despite lapse of 28 years, citing the ongoing financial distress of the Petitioner.
Justice Arun Monga highlighted Rule 10(3) of the Rajasthan Compassionate Appointment of Dependents of Deceased Government Servants Rules, 1996 (“Rules”) that permits the State to relax the time limit for such applications in exceptional cases where strict adherence shall cause financial hardship to the family.
Title: Pooja Punaram & Ors. v Rajasthan University of Heath Sciences & Ors., and other connected petitions
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 139
Adopting the principle of equity Rajasthan High Court regularized the admission of certain medical students admitted "irregularly" by three medical colleges in 2018-19 and 2019-2020, subject to the students paying fine of Rs. 1 Lakh.
At the same time Justice Dinesh Mehta imposed a cost of Rs. 7.50 Lakhs per student on Vyas Dental College, Eklavya Dental College and Maharaja Ganga Singh Dental College for giving irregular admissions, which is to be paid by July 31. Warning private colleges it said:
"It is high time when the Court should warn the private colleges to desist from giving irregular admissions. The order instant has been passed being guided by the equity in light of peculiar facts and considering that the contentious admissions were given 5-6 years back. However, in future if any such irregular admission is given by the colleges involved in the present writ petitions or by any other college, the DCI (Dental Council of India) and RUHS shall take stern action. They should not consider end of their duties by imposition of fine - they should withdraw or revoke the recognition granted to such colleges in accordance with law, obviously after following principles of natural justice".
Title: Sitaram v Executive Engineer, Irrigation Division, Jodhpur & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 140
Rajasthan High Court imposed the condition of planting 21 share trees on a workman for allowing his petition seeking another opportunity to adduce evidence in his industrial dispute. His claim was rejected by the Labour Court earlier when he failed to lead evidence on the stipulated date.
The bench of Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand said, “Planting trees as directed above, is one such initiative which this Court considers to be appropriate, as trees, for as long as they thrive whether for decades or centuries will continuously and silently offer numerous benefits to the city and the surrounding community. Future generations will benefit from a cleaner, fresh oxygen-rich environment.”
Title: Dr. Shankar Lal Bamania v State of Rajasthan & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 141
The Rajasthan High Court quashed an order where a government employee serving as Chief Medical and Health Officer (CM&HO) Udaipur was transferred as Deputy Controller of District Hospital, Pratapgarh observing that it amounted to deputation for which the employee's consent is mandatory which was missing herein.
In doing so the division bench of Chief Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava and Justice Munnuri Laxman set aside the single judge's order which had upheld the transfer order, observing that the single judge had been "misled" by respondent authorities who did not produce the relevant amended Rajasthan Medical and Health Service Rules, wherein Deputy Controller of Hospitals was no longer found in the cadre list.
It further observed that transfer order from the post of CM&HO to the post of Deputy Controller "clearly amounts to an adverse effect on the service conditions or career prospects of the appellant since such a transfer amounts to transfer from higher post to lower post".
Title: Dr. Renu Kala Mathur v State of Rajasthan & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 142
The Rajasthan High Court has said that it expects the State to issue a circular/notification on their website stating that the age of superannuation of Medical Officers holding BDS (Bachelor of Dental Surgeon)/MBBS degree was 62 years, with immediate effect.
Justice Rekha Borana passed the order in a petition challenging the State's decision retiring the petitioner–a qualified BDS–at the age of 60 years, while relying on the division bench decision in Dr. Sarvesh Pradhan v State of Rajasthan. In doing so the court said that the judgment in Dr. Sarvesh Pradhan was a judgment in rem applying to all Medical Officers (Dental) despite which the State failed to comply with the same.
Title: Sadaram & Ors. v State of Rajasthan & Anr.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 143
Rajasthan High Court has reiterated that retesting or resampling in drugs cases is generally prohibited under NDPS Act, and it cannot be allowed in a routine manner. It could be ordered only in exceptional circumstances by the Trial Court after providing specific reasons and establishing reasonable grounds for such direction.
The bench of Justice Farjand Ali advised the DGP, Rajasthan to ensure that a written communication shall be issued in this regard within 60 days so that all the SHOs are aware of and adhere to the observations made in the case. Further, the Registrar General of the Court was also directed to circulate the order to all judicial officers handling trial of NDPS cases with directions of strict adherence.
Title: Managing Committee, D.A.V. Uchh Madhyamik Vidayalaya v Saurabh Upadhayaya, and other connected petitions
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 144
The Rajasthan High Court has held that appeal under Section 19 of the Rajasthan Non-Government Educational Institutions Act, 1989 is maintainable even in matters of termination of temporary employees since the mandate under Section 18 of the Act had to followed even in case of regular as well as temporary employees.
Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand held that the Act was a social legislation which was enacted to check the arbitrary action by management of the educational institutions.
"The whole purpose behind enactment of the Act of 1989 and Rules of 1993 and the provisions made therein i.e. Section 18 and Rule 39 is to check arbitrary action on the part of the unscrupulous management of the educational institutions. The Act of 1989 and the Rules of 1993 made thereunder are social legislation enacted to ameliorate and improve educational system. Intention of the Act and the Rules formed thereunder, is to check the various malpractices and mischiefs committed by the mighty management to exploit its employees whether appointed on regular or temporary basis. The language contained under Section 18 and Rule 39 is clear and specific and it requires no other interpretation. These provisions are available to all employees, whether he/she is appointed on regular or temporary basis. Hence, it is clear that appeal under Section 19 of the Act of 1989 is maintainable in similar matters of termination from service, of temporary employees".
Title: Yashwant v State of Rajasthan & Ors, and other connected petitions
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 145
The Rajasthan High Court formed a 3-member committee headed by the Secretary of the Rajasthan Staff Selection Board for conducting factual inquiry into the allegations against certain individuals regarding discrepancies in the degrees submitted by them at the time of appointment by the education department.
Justice Dinesh Mehta in his order formed the committee observing that until the committee submitted its report to State Of Rajasthan–Secondary Education, Directorate– no prejudicial action could be taken against the petitioners.
"Upon hearing learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the State and after considering the rival contentions, this Court is of the view that simply because of the discrepancies as noticed or alleged by the respondents Petitioners' appointments cannot be canceled. The petitioners may have genuine reasons or valid explanation for the discrepancies which the Directorate has pointed out. But, the factual inquiry as prayed by the petitioners cannot be done by this Court in exercise of its writ jurisdiction.With the consent of the parties, this Court deems it appropriate to constitute a three-Member Committee to examine the veracity of the allegations levelled against the petitioners vis-avis their defence and also to take into account any other additional/incidental issue that crops up," it said.
Delay Not Explained: Rajasthan HC Upholds Order Rejecting Plea To Produce Sale Deed's Certified Copy Moved 13 Yrs After Suit Was Filed
Title: LRs of Avtar Singh & Ors. v LRs of Gajanand & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 146
Justice Rekha Borana at the Rajasthan High Court upheld a trial court order rejecting the plaintiffs' plea to bring on record a sale deed 13 years after plaint was filed, stating that merely because the suit was at the stage of plaintiff's evidence, it gave the plaintiff no inherent right to produce a document which was in their knowledge from the time of filing the suit.
In doing so the high court further observed that the plaintiffs' did not explain "sufficient cause for such delay".
Title: Smt. Shakuntala & Anr. v Smt. Pallavi
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 147
While upholding rejection of an application filed under Order 9, Rule 9 CPC owing to the law of limitation, Rajasthan High Court held that a party could not be permitted to blame the lawyers for their negligence without there being any proof of the same.
Order 9, Rule 9 CPC lays down the right of a party, whose suit was dismissed for default in appearance, to apply for setting aside the dismissal.
Justice Rekha Borana was hearing a challenge to the order of the Trial Court wherein the appellant's application to set aside dismissal of their suit was rejected. This application was rejected by the Trial Court in light of the law of limitation.
Title: Kuldeep Parasar v State of Rajasthan
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 148
Rajasthan High Court ruled that the home guards who were on non-rotational duty ever since their deployment without any break could not be considered as “volunteers” since the extraordinary longevity of their service had transformed their role from voluntary to de facto employment with the State.
The bench of Justice Arun Monga further opined that despite relying so heavily on their services, the State was exploiting them as a cost-effective labour without offering commensurate protections, remunerations, job security or post-retiral benefits. Such a treatment was not only unfair but also unsustainable.
“non-rotational Home Guards working on Group-C and D posts, have been trapped and masked under the false label of “volunteers.” In reality, they are workers exploited for years without proper recognition or rights. Some have served continuously for up to 20 years, a span that shatters any illusion of voluntary service, deemingly making them employees, not disposable volunteers.”
Title: Neeraj Kanwar v State of Rajasthan & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 149
The Rajasthan High Court grants relief to a widow candidate who had successfully cleared the interview of the Rajasthan Administrative Services (RAS), but was denied appointment on the ground of pending criminal cases arising out of matrimonial discord.
Justice Arun Monga held that despite pending criminal proceedings being a condition for ineligibility prescribed in a circular, the administrative discretion had to operate in harmony with the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Avtar Singh v Union of India.
"As stated above, the FIR had emanated from the matrimonial discord between the petitioner and her husband (since deceased). The offences in the FIR do not involve moral turpitude. The role attributed to the petitioner is not of such a nature so as to impinge on the nature of duties to be performed by her upon appointment...Even otherwise, one ought to be mindful that the youth need a reformative approach to the indiscretions committed in heat of the moment, which may or may not be intentional. Societal and so should the legal perspective be, of course depending upon the nature of delinquency, that youthful indiscretions should not permanently tarnish an individual's future. A compassionate and reformative approach ought to be adopted when dealing with young individuals who may have committed minor transgressions. Young people are still in the process of emotional and intellectual development. A punitive approach that permanently brands young individuals as criminals for relatively minor mistakes contradicts the principles of justice/fairness, recidivism and reformation and reintegration into society," the court said.
Title: Suo Moto v the Chief Secretary, Government of Rajasthan & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 150
Closing a suo motu criminal plea registered by a single judge on the non-issuance of order by State appointing Branmanand Sandu Advocate Cum Additional Advocate General despite the high court's consent, the Rajasthan High Court observed that it did not amount to contempt nor could it be considered a criminal matter.
A division bench of Chief Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava and Justice Anand Sharma in its order observed:
"Merely because the matter relates to appointment of a Government Advocate after consultation with the High Court, as required under Section 24 of the Cr.P.C. (as it then existed), it cannot be treated as a criminal matter. This is essentially a service issue. It is well settled that no PIL can be entertained in service matters. We are also of the view that non-issuance of any appointment order after consultation with the High Court, as provided under Section 24 of the Cr.P.C., does not amount to contempt".
Title: Union of India & Ors. v No. 2648428 Ex-Hav and Hony Nb/sub Raghbir Singh
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 151
The Rajasthan High Court upheld Armed Forces Tribunal's order which granted benefit of 'disability element of disability pension' to a defence personnel, holding that Chief Controller of Defence Accounts (Pension) didn't have expertise to question correctness of personnel's assessment conducted by Re-survey Medical Board (RSMB).
The division bench of Chief Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava and Justice Anand Sharma was hearing the Union's petition challenging the Tribunal's order which had directed to grant benefit of disability element of disability pension to the respondent with effect from 1998, for life.
Title: J v State of Rajasthan & Anr.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 152
While quashing a rape case based on marriage between the complainant and the accused, Rajasthan High Court remarked that marriage is a sacred and divine institution, transcending earthly matters and holding unique significance in culture.
“Marriage is considered as sacred union between two individuals – transcending beyond physical, emotional and spiritual bonds. According to the ancient Hindu laws, marriage and its rituals are performed to pursue Dharma (duty), Artha (possessions), and Kama (physical desire). With such sanctity, marriage is more than a ritual, which cannot be allowed to be destroyed by continuing the criminal proceedings against the petitioner.”
The bench of Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand further clarified that the decision was given only based on the peculiarity of marriage between the complainant and the accused, and the same should not be seen as a precedent for quashing an offence of rape based on the fact that the victim and the accused reached a compromise.
Title: Mamta Choudhary v State of Rajasthan & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 153
Rajasthan High Court expressed astonishment over the fact that out of 282 Municipal Councils/Boards, several were not following the mandatory requirement of conducting 6 meetings per year as required under Section 51 of the Rajasthan Municipalities Act, 2009 (“the Act”), without any action being taken against the defaulters by the State.
The bench of Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand issued a mandamus, directing the Chief Secretary and Principle Secretary, Department of Local Bodies, to constitute supervisory committee of Senior IAS officers at every division headquarters to monitor the functioning of all Municipal Council/Board falling under their jurisdiction.
Title: Dr. Deva Ram v the State of Rajasthan & Ors.
Citation: 2025 Live Law (Raj) 154
After over 2 decades, Rajasthan High Court granted relief to a visually impaired candidate who, despite being meritorious in the Examination, was not appointed under Rajasthan Administrative Service (RAS) but under State Accounts Service.
This was because the State had not considered him disabled enough for reservation under disabled category and he was also not considered medically fit under the general category either.
“I wish I had been more disabled — then perhaps the system would have seen me,” said Justice Sameer Jain at the outset in his order observing that these words reflect not a wish for greater suffering, but a bitter irony that in the "rigid, checkbox-driven machinery of the State's welfare framework, a person's lived experience of disability may fall through the cracks".
The court noted, "That the petitioner had successfully qualified all stages of the Rajasthan Administrative Services Examination conducted in the year 1999 and was placed at 360th position in the overall merit list. Subsequently, in the RAS Examinations held in the years 2001 and 2003, the petitioner once again qualified all stages and secured a significantly improved 21st rank in the merit list. The petitioner, in both the Rajasthan Administrative Services (RAS) Examinations conducted in the years 1999 and 2003, had appeared under the 'general category' and not under any reserved category, despite being eligible for Other Backward Classes (OBC) reservation and having a known medical condition of low vision".
Title: Ajay Chaturvedi v State of Rajasthan & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 155
Rajasthan High Court imposed a cost of Rs. 1,50,000/- on a retired Chief Engineer of the Electricity Department while dismissing his PIL seeking quashing of joint venture between Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut Utpadan Nigam Ltd. and National Thermal Power Corporation Ltd. (“the JV”), opining it to be motivated by oblique motives, and a sheer abuse of process of law.
It was the case of the petitioner that based on his expertise in the field of electricity generation, the JV would lead to production and distribution of electricity at higher rates, going against public interest.
The division bench of Chief Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava and Justice Anand Sharma observed that the JV was entered into for undertaking many projects around the Chhabra Thermal Power Plant with an objective to establish additional power generation units, increasing their efficiency and reducing the cost of generation.
Title: Satyaveer Singh v the State of Rajasthan & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 156
The Rajasthan High Court granted relief to a government lecturer who was denied grant of selection scale on the ground that he failed to affix his signatures on the application form that was submitted by him for the same.
Justice Vinit Kumar Mathur in his order said:
"Merely because, non-affixing his signatures on the application form cannot be a ground to deny benefit of grant of selection scale to the petitioner, if the details filled in the application form are correct and the petitioner is otherwise eligible for grant of selection scale".
Title: Indra Dudi v State of Rajasthan & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 157
While rejecting a petition challenging a suspension order and charge sheet issued to the Pradhan of a Panchayati Samiti, Rajasthan High Court held that charge-sheet and the suspension order could not be considered as void or invalid on the mere ground that the two were issued on a holiday.
Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand in his order said that government servants were not barred from working on holidays to discharge their normal official duties. It was opined that the object of working on a holiday was to reduce the workload, and there was no prohibition in law for performance of any official work on a holiday.
Title: Naru Lal Meghwal v the State of Rajasthan & Anr., and other connected petitions
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 158
The Rajasthan High Court ruled that even though suspension is though legally not a penalty but an interim measure, however when dragged for a prolonged period mirrors punishment or “disguised” punishment.
In doing so the court issued a mandamus to the State of Rajasthan–through Secretary, Department of Personnel, to ensure that all "competent authorities vested with the power to suspend government servants adhere to a reasonable timeline for taking further action following a suspension order passed due to pending criminal proceedings".
After perusing existing statutory law, precedents as well as administrative circulars on suspension,Justice Arun Monga laid down guidelines to be borne in mind by the competent authority/review committee, before ordering suspension, as well as for its further continuation or revocation.
Title: Kapil Ram v State of Rajasthan
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 159
The Rajasthan High Court overturned a trial court order which had charged the accused–a private cricket coach for abetment to suicide of fellow coach along with criminal defamation, wherein the deceased was allegedly harassed by the accused within a Whatsapp group.
The court observed that notably there was no suicide note discovered near the deceased and the allegation of harassment and torture by the accused was serious but did not sufficiently establish that crime under IPC Section 306 was committed. The court further said that prosecution is supposed to demonstrate a clear motive for the accused to abet the suicide, which was not the case herein.
Justice Manoj Kumar Garg opined that unlike the requirement of a direct and demonstrable link between the actions or omissions of the accused and the victim's decision to commit suicide, there was no evidence to prove the same. It was further opined threats or harassment, without evidence of direct participation in suicide, was not sufficient.
Title: Anil Paliwal v State of Rajasthan & Ors, and other connected petitions
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 160
Rajasthan High Court partly allowed a plea challenging an order under Rule 86 of Rajasthan Voluntarily Rural Education Service Rules as per which a government college teacher was “deemed to have resigned”, stating that though show cause notice issued to him was correct, his act of not reporting back on duty could not be deemed as a resignation.
The court said that though Rule 86 was not applicable however as the petitioner remained absent without even applying for any leave or permission, in such cases indiscipline of the Government servant has to be appropriately dealt with in accordance with law under Rule 17 Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 (CCA Rules) for willful absence from duty.
Title: Kamal Singh v State
The Rajasthan High Court has constituted a 5-member committee of comprising of members of the bar to examine prevailing deficiencies, structural requirements and administrative needs of the office of the Government Advocate (GA), and to recommend measures for capacity enhancement, administrative reforms and infrastructural improvements.
Justice Farjand Ali took note of critical issues with the office of the GA like shortage of ministerial staff, lack of infrastructure, inadequate remuneration to State Law officers, and resulting procedural delays leading to hampered dispensation of justice, and ordered multiple reforms to be put in place for improving functioning of GA's office.
The Court was hearing a quashing petition in relation to FIR when it highlighted multiple administrative deficiencies that were plaguing the office of the GA. It was noted that despite presence of skilled law officers, absence of clerical and technical assistance was resulting in delays in disposing of FIRs like the present one.
Title: Amit v Shri Ganesh Raj Bansal & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 161
The Rajasthan High Court dismissed a petition challenging the election of Hanumangarh MLA Ganeshraj Bansal alleging non-disclosure of certain criminal cases, observing that once the police had filed a negative final report prima facie the successful candidate was not required to reveal those cases in the nomination form.
Justice Dinesh Mehta in his order said:
"This Court has it own reservation about the legality and sustainability of the issue which the petitioner has canvassed and in prima-facie opinion of this Court, once the police has filed negative Final Report, the candidate furnishing nomination paper is not required to give particulars of those cases. The petitioner has neither brought to the Court's notice any statutory provision nor any precedent which enjoins upon a candidate to furnish information even in those cases wherein the police has given him a clean chit".
Title: Shubham Rewad & Ors. v State of Rajasthan & Anr.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 162
The Rajasthan High Court rejected a plea for quashing an FIR based on compromise between certain students of Rajasthan University accused of assaulting a former professor, observing that the alleged offences were serious in nature and per se breaches the tranquility and peace of society.
Justice Sameer Jain in his order said:
"The allegations noted in the FIR pertain to a group of students/persons who have locked the gate of the Administrative Block of the University of Rajasthan for whatsoever reasons. The complainant herein is stated to be an ex-professor who at the time of incidence was the In-charge of Disciplinary Committee, however had lodged the impugned FIR in ignorance of law, without attaining requisite sanction from the competent authorities. It can be deduced that the alleged offence is of serious in nature; effects public at large moreover lakhs of students who are enrolled or connected from/with the said University; that the alleged offence per se breaches the tranquility and peace of society and gives a negative influence to the spectators".
Title: Victim v State of Rajasthan & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 163
Rajasthan High Court has granted permission to the Superintendent, Government Balika Grah, to admit a 11 year old rape victim, in any Government School situated near the vicinity of the Balika Grah, and to bear expenses of her studies till she attained the age of majority.
The bench of Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand also directed the Superintendent, Balika Grah, to submit report along with documentary proof of the victim's admission in the School, and also yearly report in July, till she attained majority.
The Court observed that Right to Education was fundamental right of every child as per Article 21A of the Constitution which was further represented by the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education (RTE) Act, 2009
Title: Giriraj Prasad Sharma v State of Rajasthan, and other connected matters
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 164
Observing that in a welfare State prolonged denial of regularization despite continuous service for decades borders on institutional exploitation, the Rajasthan High Court passed a slew of directions to the State government in respect of various employees appointed as far back as 1979 whose initial appointments were irregular or illegal, but who had completed long years of service.
Justice Arun Monga held that constitutional morality warranted that appointments irregular in form but not in substance, backed by sanctioned posts and years of continuous service, should not remain at the mercy of procedural regularity.
Title: Vinod Shaily & Anr. v State of Rajasthan & Anr, and other connected matters
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 165
While quashing an FIR against private doctors booked for negligently mistreating a patient pursuant to which she passed away, the Rajasthan High Court observed that it would be wrong to assume that a doctor or institution shall deliberately risk its reputation by engaging in rash and negligent medical practices.
In doing so Justice Farjand Ali observed that the "risk of professional ruin, economic decline, and eventual institutional collapse" are factors that act as a natural deterrent against any wilful lapse in the standard of care on the doctors/medical institutions part.
The court thus observed that it is "inconceivable" that a licensed and qualified medical professional, having undergone rigorous academic training and extensive clinical exposure over several years, would "intentionally" pursue a line of treatment with the objective of "endangering human life".
Finally the Court acknowledged the sorrow owing to demise of a family member, however, it was held that it was solemn obligation of the legal system to distinguish between misfortune and culpability, and to ensure that human suffering did not substitute proof required under law.
Title: Ganraj Bishnoi v State of Rajasthan & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 166
While hearing a bunch of petitions by government employees who were put under the category of “Awaiting Posting Orders” without assigning or conveying any reasons, the bench of Justice Arun Monga at the Rajasthan High Court issued guidelines.
The State was directed to issue necessary administrative directions to all the HoDs/Administrative Secretaries, and other competent administrative officers to sensitize them about the guidelines.
Title: Hussain Mohammad v Shri Tolaram & Anr., and other connected petitions
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 167
The Rajasthan High Court rejected a batch of pleas filed by former Congress MLA and State Cabinet Minister Pramod Jain Bhaya, his friends and relatives, seeking quashing of 13 FIRs claiming that these were lodged with political motives and were handled by investigating agencies under the influence of the ruling party.
The court also rejected the petitioners' plea to club the FIRs after observing that the 'test of sameness' was not satisfied. It further said that the petitioners' simultaneous plea for quashing and a unified probe is legally irreconcilable and cannot be granted.
Justice Sameer Jain ruled that the FIRs registered, were concerning distinct and independent allegations, involving different witnesses, different documents, and separate causes of action.
Title: Smt. Rajani Bhardwaj v Director, Secondary Education
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 168
Expressing "pain" on the prevalence of gender bias, the Rajasthan High Court issued a mandamus to the State to take an immediate policy decision to rectify shortcomings in policies/rules leading to discriminatory practices against women performing the same duties as their male counterparts, but who are denied equivalent benefits.
In doing so Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand set aside the order of the Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal that denied promotion to a lecturer to the post of Principal solely due to her gender and placement in the cadre of girls' institutions, terming it a violative of Articles 14, 15, 16, and 21, of the Constitution of India.
Title: Bhikam Chand v State of Rajasthan & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 169
Reading down the proviso to Rule 50(4) of State Civil Services (Pension) Rules barring withdrawal from voluntary retirement once the application is accepted by the employer, the Rajasthan High Court said putting a complete embargo on an employee's choice to withdraw retirement plea even before it becomes effective renders the scheme suffering from manifest arbitrariness.
It further held that withdrawal of a voluntary retirement application cannot be rejected without application of mind.
The division bench of Chief Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava and Justice Munnuri Laxman opined that the restriction incorporated by the proviso, without reference to any determining principle, was destructive of the objective of providing 3 months window period under Rule 50(1), before an application for voluntary retirement became effective.
Title: Indra & Anr. v Jagdish Chandra & Anr.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 170
Enhancing the compensation awarded by Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal to the kin of a deceased second year MBBS student from around Rs.12 Lakhs to over Rs.1 crore, the Rajasthan High Court said that computing deceased's income prospects based on the standard of minimum wage of skilled worker was wholly unrealistic, unduly pedantic and hypertechnical.
Justice Arun Monga opined that while dealing with young professionals, courts shall rise above "rigid arithmetical calculations" and insistence of income proof. Such minimum-wage based approach led to devaluing education, aspiration and merit, the court added.
Title: Shravan Choudhary v State of Rajasthan & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 171
While directing reinstatement of a government employee terminated without charge sheet or disciplinary inquiry, the Rajasthan High Court said that an order of termination in service law is akin to capital punishment which can be passed only after holding a proper inquiry to prevent punishment of innocent persons.
Justice Vinit Kumar Mathur was hearing a petition filed by a Physical Training Instructor who was terminated from services based on a show cause notice that alleged him to have secured appointment by playing fraud, without issuing any charge sheet or conducting any disciplinary inquiry.
Title: Varshita Kanwar v State of Rajasthan & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 172
While hearing a petition by a Class 10th Student who was given a wrong question social science question paper by the invigilator, the Rajasthan High Court directed the evaluation of the student's answer sheet treating her as a general/ordinary student observing that she should not suffer due to the invigilator's mistake.
Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand said:
"In the considered opinion of this Court, students should not suffer due to the mistake on the part of Invigilator/Examiner or any administrative oversights. For the fault, mistake and negligence of the Invigilator or School Administration, the students, like the petitioner, cannot be blamed. If the answers of the petitioner, while attempting the question paper meant for CWSN students are not checked by the respondents, by treating her a general/ordinary students, then the entire academic year of the petitioner would go waste and it would have a costing effect on her future, career and endeavours in the field of academics. This error has occurred due to fault mistake and negligence of the Invigilator, which has caused great hardship to the petitioner but such mistake or fault on the part of Invigilator cannot be allowed to result in miscarriage of justice to the petitioner for no fault of her own".
Title: Javed Mohammad and Anr. Versus Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd and Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 173
The Rajasthan High Court bench of Justices Avneesh Jhingan and Bhuwan Goyal has held that when the delivery of the arbitral award at the registered address is not disputed, the limitation period under Section 34(3) of the Arbitration Act cannot be suspended on the ground that the appellant became aware of the award at a later date. The limitation period must be computed from the date of receipt of the award, not from the date of knowledge.
Title: Rakesh Totuka v State of Rajasthan & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 174
Granting relief to a victim of digital fraud who lost Rs. 58 Lakh from his IDBI bank account due to unauthorized electronic transactions, the Rajasthan High Court directed the bank to refund the entire amount with interest in view of the “Zero Liability” direction by RBI in its July 6, 2017 circular.
Expressing pain at the rise of digital scams, Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand said that in the age of rapid change of digital evolution, digital scams had emerged as one of the most insidious form of cyber-crime. It was observed that more serious steps were required to curb the dangerous situation.
Title: Khyali Ram v State of Rajasthan & Anr.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 175
Rajasthan High Court ruled that comprehensive reading of Sections 11 and 30 of POCSO Act reflected that in prosecution for sexual harassment, the Special Court was mandated to presume existence of the sexual intent once the prosecution had proved commission of the act constituting sexual harassment.
These observations were given by Justice Manoj Kumar Garg while hearing a revision petition filed for charges framed against the petitioners under POCSO Act, wherein it was argued on behalf of the petitioner's counsel that the act of showing adult videos to a child did not, in isolation, constituted a criminal offence unless it was proven to be accompanied with coercion, exploitation or other unlawful acts.
Title: Rajasthan Urban Infrastructures Development Project Versus M/s National Builders
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 176
The Rajasthan High Court bench of Justices Avneesh Jhingan and Bhuwan Goyal has held that the imposition of liquidated damages by a party primarily responsible for the delay in completion of the work is unjustified. Therefore, the arbitrator's direction to refund such damages cannot be interfered with, given the limited scope of appellate intervention under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (Arbitration Act).
The court further observed that the question of exemption on LDO falls within the jurisdiction of the excise department. The respondent had sought such exemption via a letter dated 17.04.2004 to the Assistant Commissioner, and there is no evidence that the department objected to the claim. Hence, no ground is made out to interfere with the arbitrator's direction to refund the recovered excise duty.
Title: Khema v State of Rajasthan
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 177
Setting aside the Trial Court's order, Rajasthan High Court acquitted a rape convict, opining that since false accusations were not uncommon, judiciary had to exercise prudence and discernment, particularly in cases involving serious allegations like rape. It was held that such charges may be motivated by motives like revenge, extortion or evasion of financial obligations.
The bench of Justice Manoj Kumar Garg gave this ruling in the background of lack of corroboration of prosecutrix's testimony from scientific and medical evidence, non-production of FSL report, as well as delay of 3 days in lodging the FIR which was stated as being indicative of a fabricated or exaggerated story.
Title: Karnawat Marbles v Sohan Singh
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 178
Rajasthan High Court has upheld an order of the Tribunal under Employees Compensation Act granting compensation to a daily wage worker (respondent) who was injured during his employment but was not appearing in the Employees State Insurance Register or the attendance register of the employer-appellant.
While agreeing with the reasoning of the Tribunal that the employee could be a daily-wage worker, the bench of Justice Arun Monga observed that it was a common industrial practice to not reflect casual or daily wage workers in the formal employment records.
Title: Sunil Kumar Bhakoo Versus Smt. Varisha
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 179
The Rajasthan High Court bench of Justices Avneesh Jhingan and Bhuwan Goyal has held that when a court, in proceedings under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (Arbitration Act) finds that the agreement to sell, on which the arbitration was initiated, is insufficiently stamped, it must provide the party an opportunity to cure the defect by impounding the instrument. The court cannot set aside the arbitral award on the ground that the agreement was invalid due to insufficient stamping.
It further observed that a curable defect before the arbitrator became incurable at a later stage, leading to a scenario where, even if the issue of admissibility is reversed, the agreement remains unenforceable. This enables a party to rely on the technical ground of insufficient stamping as a defence under Sections 34 or 37 of the Arbitration Act, despite the arbitrator having earlier ruled in the appellants' favour.
The court further observed that as per Section 36 of the Stamp Act, once an instrument is admitted in evidence, its admissibility cannot be questioned later in the same suit or proceedings on the ground of being unstamped, except under Section 61.
Title: Balram Yadav v Rajasthan University of Health Sciences & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 180
The Rajasthan High Court fined State University of Health Sciences Rs 10 Lakh for admitting an ineligible student in the B.Sc course, and had later disallowed him to give first year final exams observing that the varsity's negligent act had caused loss of one year to the student, creating an obstacle in his future educational pursuits.
Concurrently, Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand rejected the petition filed by the ineligible student seeking directions to Rajasthan Univeristy of Health Sciences (RUHS) to allow him to pursue his studies, opining that "no ineligible candidate could be permitted to take admission to any course and be allowed to complete it under the protection of a court's order". The court further said that no illegality could be allowed to be perpetuated.
Title: Leela Kumari v State of Rajasthan & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 181
The Rajasthan High Court ruled that once an employee was provided a fresh appointment letter, she could not be bound by the condition of bond prescribed in her earlier appointment letter or the rules governing such appointment.
Justice Rekha Borana was hearing a writ petition filed against a direction from the State directing recovery of Rs. 5 lakhs from the petitioner on account of breach of bond on her part as she got transferred from being a “Community Health Officer” to a “Nursing Officer”.
“Had the intent of the State been to ensure the compliance of the bonds as furnished by the incumbents in terms of the advertisement in the year 2020, definitely a specific condition to the said effect would have been incorporated in the Rules of 2022. The same having not been incorporated, clarifies that it was never the intent of the legislature to enforce the said condition," it added.
Title: Jai Singh v the State of Rajasthan, and other connected petition
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 182
The Rajasthan High Court rejected the quashing petition by a police constable charged under the NDPS Act for unlawfully and illegally retaining opium recovered from an intercepted vehicles, for a period of 4 days.
Terming it a “very unique case of unlawful activities and exercise of power by the members of Law Enforcing Authority”, Justice Farjand Ali observed that even having possession of contraband in itself was an offence, despite there being a license or any authority under law to keep it detained.
Title: Hari Narayan Sharma v State of Rajasthan & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 183
The Rajasthan High Court held that land reserved for the purpose of construction of school could not be allotted for the purpose of construction of hostel that too at a very lower reserve price of only 5%, as opposed to Rule 18 of Rajasthan Municipalities (Disposal of Urban Land) Rules, 1974 (“the Rules”).
While calling the allocation as illegal and without any justification, the bench of Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand opined that there were certain “hidden extraneous considerations behind the entire action of the State for allotment of land in question” in favour of the respondent society.
“Perusal of Rule 31 of the Rules of 1974 indicates that only in exception cases, where the State Government is satisfied that operation of the said Rules causes hardship in any particular case or where the State Government is of the opinion that it is necessary or expedient in public interest to do so, may relax the provisions of these Rules.”
Title: Shree Jagdish Bohra Pvt. ITI & Anr. v State of Rajasthan & Ors, and other connected petitions
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 184
The Rajasthan High Court allowed 139 appeals by Industrial Training Institutes (ITIs) setting aside a single judge's order, ruling that ITIs governed under the Apprentices Rules, established/recognized prior to 2018 academic year were not required to furnish performance bank guarantee of Rs. 50,000 per unit.
The division bench of Justice Shree Chandrashekhar and Justice Chandra Shekhar Sharma was hearing a bunch of appeals filed by Industrial Training Institutes (ITI) imparting vocational training to students in different states, challenging the order of single judge. The single judge had held that Training Institutes running the vocational courses are liable to comply with the condition of furnishing bank guarantee whether such Training Institutes were established prior to 2018 or afterwards.
Title: Chirag Naruka v the Chairman, Board of Secondary Education, Rajasthan Ajmer & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 185
Quoting playwright William Shakespeare quote “What's in a name?” from “Romeo and Juliet”, Rajasthan High Court while underscoring that a name is everything said that it was the foundation of one's legal, social and emotional identity and hence a mother being 'birth giver' has every right to get her name recorded in her children's academic records.
Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand highlighted that prior to 2001, there was no concept of adding mother's name in children's educational records, which was not only unjustifiable but also clearly retrogressive. Hence, with the passage of time, it became mandatory to include the names of both the parents in their children's educational certificates and degrees.
Title: Sakshi Choudhary v Union of India & Anr.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 186
The Rajasthan High Court granted relief to the petitioner who was denied admission in B.Sc (Nursing) under Armed Forces Medical Services despite being eligible, after being assessed as “unfit” when her hemoglobin was found to be low owing to heavy menstrual blood flow at the relevant time.
Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand held that,
“A girl's health condition like the petitioner, should not hinder her access to education merely because that of her hemoglobin was found to be below the prescribed level because of heavy menstrual bleeding. Menstrual cycle should not be treated as a barrier to the education of any girl child like the petitioner. Denying education on the basis of health concerns, arising due to menstruation is unacceptable.”
The Court stated that menstrual cycle should not be treated as a barrier to girl child's education, and denying education on the basis of health concerns arising due to menstruation was unacceptable.
Title: Dr. Jwala Prasad Kaloshia & Ors. v the State of Rajasthan & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 187
While granting relief to a bunch of Teaching Associates engaged under the “Vidhya Sambal Yojna” (“Yojna”) in colleges covered under the Rajasthan College Education Society (Raj-CES), Rajasthan High Court said that their engagement shall be governed under the 2023 Raj-CES Hiring of Manpower Rules, 2023 rather than the Yojna.
Justice Vinit Kumar Mathur in his order held that vide its order dated July 11, 2022, the State Government not only constituted Raj-CES, but also notified that 2023 Rules that governed and regulated the hiring of manpower on a contractual basis, and others service conditions of people engaged in connection with affairs Raj-CES.
Rajasthan High Court Quashes Suspension Of MBBS Students Accused Of Giving NEET For Other Aspirants
Title: Vikas Vishnoi v Controller of Examinations, Rajasthan University of Health Sciences and other connected petitions
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 188
Rajasthan High Court granted relief to a bunch of MBBS students who were put under suspension on order of National Medical Commission (“NMC”) owing to FIRs launched against them alleging that they impersonated some other candidates in NEET UG Examination-2023, directing the respective colleges to allow them to attend classes and appear in exams.
The bench of Justice Dinesh Mehta ruled that that in absence of any provision providing power to suspend, rusticate or cancel the admission of the candidates involved in such act, suspension of the petitioners was not only illegal and without jurisdiction but also violative of their fundamental rights under Articles 19(1)(g) and 21 of the Constitution.
The Court further held that the case against the petitioners was not that they got admission by asking someone else to appear on their behalf, but that they gave the exam impersonating someone else. In such a case, there was no dispute regarding their own merit or eligibility of getting admission in the medical courses, hence, lenient view had to be adopted, with caution.
Title: Arta Broch Ceramics Private Limited v Clay Craft (India) Private Limited and other connected petition
Citation: 2025 Livelaw (Raj) 189
The Rajasthan High Court has said that once a plaint was returned, the same could not be entertained by the same court based on same averments made in the earlier plaint, in the absence of any specific new pleadings or averments in the re-instituted case.
Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand held the averments made in any application under Section 151, CPC, could not be considered part of the formal pleadings and hence, no suit could be re-registered, in the same court, based on that alone.
"Once a plaint is returned to the plaintiff, the same should not be entertained on the basis of the same averments made earlier in the same plaint. Unless and until a fresh suit with new averments regarding the cause of action is presented, the previously returned suit cannot be re-instituted or tried. In the absence of specific pleadings, the Commercial Court cannot entertain a suit that was previously returned, due to lack of jurisdiction, based on the assertions made about the defendant's business in Jaipur in any application submitted under Section 151 CPC. The averments made in any application under Section 151 CPC cannot be considered as part of the formal pleadings in the previous plaint, and therefore, the suit cannot be re-registered on that basis alone".
Title: Abdul Rahim v the Managing Committee & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 190
The Rajasthan High Court has said that if any part of an institution was receiving a grant, then the entire institution shall be treated as aided and even if the grant was not received for a particular post, employees on such posts are entitled to protection from removal under State Non-Government Educational Institutions Act and relevant rules.
Justice Anand Sharma further opined that irrespective of receiving any aid, a recognized institution could not be absolved from the mandate of Section 18 of Rajasthan Non-Government Educational Institutions Act that laid down procedure for removal, dismissal and reduction in rank of employees.
The Court stated that while non-government educational institutions received facilities and aid from the State, these were also under legal obligations to strictly comply with the statues, rules and regulations.
Title: Mordhawaj v Ramwati & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 191
Rajasthan High Court has ruled that the power of the Revenue Board provided under Section 221 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 (“the Act”) is only administrative in nature and not akin to the supervisory power of the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution. Hence, in exercise of such administrative power, no decree or judicial order could be set aside.
The bench of Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand was hearing a petition filed against the order of the Board of Revenue wherein while exercising power under Section 221 of the Act, order of the Revenue Appellate Authority (“RAA”) was set aside.
“The power of Board of Revenue under Section 221 of the Act of 1955 is not akin to the power of the High Court, as provided under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. In the scheme of the Act of 1955, there is a clear demarcation of the judicial and the administrative powers of the Board. While Section 230 of the Act of 1955 provides for the judicial power, Section 221 of the Act of 1955 confers only administrative power and in exercise of administrative power, no decree or judicial order could be set aside.”
Title: Jasaram Pander v State of Rajasthan and other connected petitions
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 192
Rajasthan High Court has ruled that procedural safeguards under Section 33(2) and 37 of the POCSO Act are contingent on the age of the victim, and have to be confined to the statutory definition of “child”. Therefore, once a victim attains the age of majority during trial pendency, these procedural safeguards cease to apply.
“While the POCSO Act is indeed a benevolent legislation, designed to safeguard children from sexual offences, the protective mechanisms embedded therein cannot be extended to adults...Such an approach would Subvert both the legislative intent and the constitutional requirement of parity in procedural fairness, thereby reducing the courtroom into a space of therapeutic justice rather than forensic adjudication.”
The bench of Justice Farjand Ali held that such procedural safeguards must cease to be applicable upon the victim attaining majority unless the Court deems it necessary in the interest of justice and psychological welfare of the witness without causing undue prejudice to the accused's fair trial rights.
While carving an exception to this ruling, the Court further ruled that by recording reasons in writing, the Court could extend the benefit of these safeguard, if deemed necessary in the interest of justice and psychological welfare of witness without causing any undue prejudice to the accused's fair trial rights.
Title: Smt. Gauri v the State of Rajasthan & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 193
Rajasthan High Court set aside the transfer of a Grade III Teacher (Social Studies) whose subject was changed to English, stating that if she is forced to impart education on a subject she is not qualified in, she may have to face adverse civil consequences like departmental proceedings.
The division bench of Justice Shree Chandrashekhar and Justice Saneep Shah further held that the appellant's transfer would also deny her prospective students' the benefit of being taught by a qualified teacher, thus violating their rights under Article 21-A of the Constitution.
Title: Rajendra Choudhary & Ors. v State of Rajasthan & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 194
The Rajasthan High Court dismissed a PIL filed by practicing advocates of Gram Nyayalaya, Jodhpur against the proposed construction of Sewage Treatment Plant (STP) near the village court, ruling that it was not for the High Court to decide under Article 226 which site would be more suitable for setting up the STP.
A division bench of Justice Shree Chandrashekhar and Justice Sandeep Shah, further held that establishment of the STP was in itself in public interest.
"It hardly needs any reiteration that the establishment of the STP is in public interest and for the public good and some inconvenience at some stage may be caused to the nearby people, but the larger public good cannot be ignored for that reason. The respondents have placed on record the notice inviting objections and the order sanctioning the STP, as also the details with regard to the type of STP being installed, where they would be using sequencing batch reactor technology. They have also placed on record the details of the technology in question, which will ensure minimal environmental impact. Not only this, it is an admitted case that after considering all the adverse environmental impacts, as well as the provisions of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 and Air (Prevention and Control of pollution) Act, 1981 and other ancillary facts, the Pollution Control Board has granted the consent to establish the STP in question".
Title: Nadeem Ansari and Ors v. State of Rajasthan
The Rajasthan High Court on Friday (May 30) directed the State authorities not to take any coercive action for four weeks against meat shop owners in Kota whose shops had been directed to be seized and closed by the municipal authorities.
While disposing of the plea moved by certain meat shop owners of the city, the Court further directed the Respondent-authorities to decide their applications for renewal of license expeditiously, preferably within four weeks.
Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand in his order said :
"Considering the arguments put forward by the learned counsel for the petitioners and looking to the fact that the petitioners were granted licenses to run meat shops and the validity of the same has expired and thereafter, several applications have been submitted by the petitioners for renewal of the same before the competent authority but in spite of passing of considerable time, the application submitted by the petitioners have not been decided, the instant writ petition stands disposed of by issuing directions to the respondents to decide the applications (pending, if any) for renewal of licenses expeditiously, as early as possible, preferably within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order".
Supreme Court Collegium Proposes Elevation Of 3 Advocates As Rajasthan High Court Judges
The Supreme Court Collegium, in its meeting held today, recommended the elevation of three advocates as the Judges of the Rajasthan High Court.
They are :
(i) Shri Bipin Gupta,
(ii) Shri Sanjeet Purohit, and
(iii) Shri Ravi Chirania.
Title: State v Saif Ali
The Rajasthan Government has moved the High Court challenging the acquittal of actors Saif Ali Khan, Sonali Bendre, Tabu and Neelam by the trial Court in the 1998 Blackbuck Poaching Case.
Justice Manoj Kumar Garg heard the State's appeal on May 16 and in its order said: "List the matter on 28.07.2025 along with the criminal appeal filed by the accused – Salman Khan".
Title: Suo Moto v State of Rajasthan, and other connected petition
In the matter of suo moto cognizance in relation to increasing suicides in coaching institutes, particularly in Kota, Rajasthan High Court expressed serious concern over the matter, highlighting that no legislation has been framed by the State despite the PIL being pending since 2016.
The division bench of Chief Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava and Justice Mukesh Rajpurohit highlighted that it had been passing various orders from time to time to bring about change in the “sorry state of affairs”.
"Since no legislation has been framed despite pendency of this petition since 2016, this Court was inclined to issue appropriate directions for implementation of the guidelines of the Central Government till appropriate legislation comes in place by passing a detailed order today itself, taking into consideration the gravity of the situation. We are however inclined to defer passing further orders in the matter in view of what has been stated by learned counsel for the respondents that on the issue of deaths having taken place in Kota, cognizance has been taken by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the matter would again be coming up for consideration on 23.05.2025 and further taking into consideration that the Counsel state that they seek to apply to the Hon'ble Supreme Court for transfer of this case also," it said.
Title: Suo Moto v the State of Rajasthan & Ors.
In a suo-motu plea concerning 16 non-functioning permanent Lok Adalats, the Rajasthan High Court on Thursday (May 15) expressed its dissatisfaction with the affidavit filed by the State government and directed the legal affairs department's principal secretary to remain personally present in court on the next date of hearing.
A division bench of Justice Shree Chandrashekhar and Justice Sandeep Shah in its order said:
"An affidavit has been filed in compliance of the direction issued by this Court on 13th May 2025 but it is highly unsatisfactory".
The court had on May 13 taken suo motu cognizance of a Dainik Bhaskar news report which claims that owing to an order passed by the State Government on April 9 as many as 16 permanent Lok Adalats are not functioning. The report indicated that around 972 cases were pending at Jodhpur, and there was a high probability that there may be about 10,000 cases pending settlement through the permanent Lok Adalats. The court had then asked the State to file an affidavit in the matter.
Title: Suo Moto v State of Rajasthan & Ors.
The Rajasthan High Court on Tuesday (May 13) took suo moto cognizance of a Dainik Bhaskar news report which claims that owing to an order passed by the State Government on April 9 as many as 16 permanent Lok Adalats are not functioning, terming it as a “very serious issue concerning Access to Justice”.
The division bench of Justice Shree Chandrashekhar and Justice Sandeep Shah in its order states that the report indicates that around 972 cases were pending at Jodhpur, and there was a high probability that there may be about 10,000 cases pending settlement through the permanent Lok Adalats.
Update: In light of subsequent developments, the lawyers association has decided to withdraw its representation for no-work, and will continue functioning as normal from today onwards.
Rajasthan High Court Lawyers' Association (“Association”) has requested the Chief Justice of Rajasthan High Court to declare “No Work” period for a duration of 5 days commencing from May 12, 2025, in light of the “prevailing sensitive and volatile situation in the region, coupled with a sustained blackout and the imminent threat posed by separatist and disruptive forces”.
Title: Priyansha Gupta v Union of India & Others
While hearing a plea on the "menace" of online sale of e-cigarettes, the Rajasthan High Court expressed its dissatisfaction with the reply filed by the police and further directed the state's Director General of Police to inform through a detailed affidavit on the development and implementation of a preventive mechanism to curb such sale.
The division bench of Chief Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava and Justice Mukesh Rajpurohit also directed the officer-in-charge of PHQ to remain present in court on the next date of hearing to inform with regard to necessary steps taken.
For context, the high court had directed that an affidavit will be filed by the "officer-in-charge in police headquarter" dealing with issues relating to online sale of e-cigarettes and who is fully conversant with the steps which have been taken, action plan, if any, framed and the affidavit must also clearly state as to what action so far against online platforms selling e-cigarettes.
Title: Manjeet Deora v State of Rajasthan & Ors
The Rajasthan High Court in an interim order has restrained the State government from granting benefits of Swami Vivekanand Scholarship for High Studies (earlier known as Rajiv Gandhi Scholarship) to any candidates falling under the E3 category having annual family income of more than 25 lakhs, till further orders.
Expressing pain at the situation, Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand said so after noting that "millions of rupees" from government exchequer have been given in the name of such Scholarships to candidates having rich & wealthy parents depriving those needy, poor and scholar candidates who are outstanding in their studies. The high court further said that it "cannot shut and close its eyes to such discretionary functioning of the Government and its officials who are misusing the public money and government exchequer in the name of granting Scholarships to those, who are not in fact entitled to receive the same".
Title: The State of Rajasthan, through District Collector Pali. & Ors. vs. Sanwariya Infrastructure Private Limited
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 195
The Rajasthan High Court bench comprising Justice Avneesh Jhingan and Justice Bhuwan Goyal have held that an arbitral award which grants reliefs beyond the express terms of the contract, including compensation for losses and interest where no such entitlement exists under the agreement, is patently illegal and liable to be set aside under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
The Court held that awards passed beyond the terms of the contract come within the teeth of grounds available u/s 37 of the Act for interference. It relied upon State of Rajasthan v. Nav Bharat Construction Co., where the Supreme Court held that “An arbitrator cannot go beyond the terms of the contract between the parties. In the guise of doing justice he cannot award contrary to the terms of the contract”.
Title: Komal Kumawat & Ors. v Union of India & Ors., and other connected petitons
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 196
The Rajasthan High Court dismissed the writ petitions filed challenging the constitutional validity of an amendment to the Rajasthan Technical Training Subordinate Service Rules mandating possession of relevant National Craft Instructor Certificates (NCIC)/Crafts Instructor Training Scheme (CITS) Certificate for the post of Junior Instructors.
The division bench of Justice Inderjeet Singh and Justice Anand Sharma opined that as per the notification issued by the State to amend the Rules, the requirement of possessing NCIC/CITS certificates were only for those traders where the courses under CITS were available. It was not mandatory in all cases, and an exception was carved out for the contingencies where the courses under CITS were not available.
“Merely, for the reason that Schedule sought to be substituted vide Notification dated 01.09.2023 is silent in respect of manner of relaxation to be granted qua possessing NCIC/CITS certificate, even for the trades where CITS courses are not available, would not invalidate the Notification dated 01.09.2023 for the reason that it goes without saying that O.M. dated 30.06.2023 issued by the Central Government would govern the field, where the State Rules are silent.”
Possibility Of Accused Benefitting From Victims' Fear In Going To Police Can't Be Ignored: Rajasthan High Court Declines To Quash Rape FIRs
Title: Arpit Naraniwal v State and batch
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 197
The Rajasthan High Court declined to quash two FIRs–one lodged in February 2024 and the other in March 2024–registered against a man accused of engaging in sexual relations with two women under the false promise of marriage.
In doing so the court said that in the present case, the possibility of the accused taking benefit of the situation or fear instilled in women on reporting of sexual assault cases cannot be ignored.
Justice Kuldeep Mathur, in his order observed that the facts disclosed in the FIRs indicated that complainants were in relationship with the petitioner for a considerable long period of time, but they were not in a "continuous relationship and were intermittent". It noted that the parties re-entered into the relationship again on being assured by the petitioner that he would marry the complainants.
Title: Mahipal Singh v Kundal Mal
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 198
The Rajasthan High Court set aside a trial court order which after allowing summoning of a witness had closed a party's evidence when the witness was not produced even after multiple opportunities, observing that "justice hurried is justice buried".
Justice Arun Monga held that without proper evidence, adjudication might result in erroneous findings. Hence, the high court gave one more opportunity after imposing cost of Rs. 5000 on the petitioner.
"It transpires that what weighed on the mind of the learned trial court was that granting of further opportunity to the petitioner would result in delay of the trial proceedings. No doubt, granting of opportunity would have resulted in delay, but the same could have been compensated by imposing cost. While justice delayed is justice denied, at the same time, justice hurried is justice buried. Without proper evidence, being adduced before the learned trial court, the adjudication on the issues involved, may result in erroneous findings".
Title: Anup Agrawal v State of Rajasthan & Anr, and other connected petitions
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 199
The Rajasthan High Court upheld the constitutional validity of a State amendment to an April 22 instruction booklet issued on NEET-PG 2024, concerning the six-month Ultrasound Training Course under the Pre-Conception and Pre-Natal Diagnostic Techniques Rules (the Rules) that introduced a new eligibility criteria for admission.
While upholding the constitutional validity of the addendum brought in by the amendment, Justice Sameer Jain opined that the maxim “salus populi suprema lex esto” (the welfare of the people shall be the supreme law) guided the State in formulating healthcare-related educational policy. The twin criteria of institutional preference and in-service preference served the larger public interest and were grounded in rational and non-arbitrary classification.
Title: Ajaypal Singh v State of Rajasthan, and other connected petitions
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 200
Quashing FIRs against over 50 farmers stated to be "peacefully protesting" on Jawai Dam water distribution issue, Rajasthan High Court said that an individual taking to the streets to protest to safeguard their rights when their interest were affected did not imply that they had committed offences alleged under IPC and National Highways Act.
Observing that Section 8B of National Highways Act was not applicable against the petitioners Justice Farjand Ali in his order said:
"In a silent protest, it cannot be presumed that any person has caused harm to public property or to any individual. It is well understood that water is a basic necessity, and for farmers, it is a matter of survival and livelihood. Their wrath and resentment, therefore, is natural. If they come forward to request that the authorities should hold discussions in a setting where they feel comfortable particularly when the outcome directly affects their lives and if they express their dissent against a decision taken by the authorities in a democratic manner, there is nothing unlawful in that. Furthermore, if a group stands in a public place, some degree of obstruction is inevitable, but that alone does not constitute an offence, especially in the absence of violence or damage. Therefore, the ingredients of Section 8B are not fulfilled".
Title: Gyanchand Soni v State of Rajasthan & Ors., and other connected petitions
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 201
While hearing pleas against demolition drives for road widening allegedly conducted without following procedure, the Rajasthan High Court directed the State to first count number of plants/trees which are to be removed for beautification work and road expansion, and subsequently plant trees ten times of this number in nearby public areas.
Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand held that planting trees and plants was an initiative considered appropriate by the Court, as thriving tree, whether for decades or centuries provided continuous and silent benefits to the city and its surrounding community.
Issue Of Non-Joinder In Amendment To Written Statement Holds No Weight Unless Party Is Indispensable Under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC: Rajasthan HC
Title: Shrilal v Smt. Bhagwati Devi
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 202
While upholding Trial Court's order of dismissing application to amend the written statement, the bench of Justice Arun Monga at the Rajasthan High Court held that the plaintiff being the master of the lis could not be compelled to include or exclude particular individuals. Hence, the issue of non-joinder in the amendment did not hold any weight unless the party was indispensable under Order 1 Rule 10, CPC.
“…plaintiff is the master of the lis and it is for him to see as to whom he wants to sue or proceed against and the defendant cannot decide it on behalf of the plaintiff. The plaintiff has the discretion to choose the parties to be impleaded in a suit. The defendant cannot compel the plaintiff to include or exclude particular individuals.”
Title: All India Institute of Medical Sciences, Jodhpur & Anr. v Dr. Mahendra Kumar Garg, and other connected petitions
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 203
In pleas by retired doctors “re-employed” by AIIMS Jodhpur against imposition “Pay minus pension” rule five years after their appointment orders were issued without such condition, the Rajasthan High Court slammed the hospital for being ignorant about the law applicable upon its employees.
The division bench of Justice Pushpendra Singh Bhati and Justice Chandra Prakash Shrimali held that the statutory provisions governing the field of “re-employed” persons could not be excluded merely because of an omission on part of the employer in clarifying the same in the advertisement notice or appointment order.
Furthermore, the Court perused All India Institute of Medical Sciences Regulations, 1999 (“1999 Regulations”) and opined that Regulation 33 indicated that if a retired person was employed at AIIMS, he/she had to be treated as a re-employed person. Further, the Court opined that once it was determined that the petitioners were re-employed, 1986 Orders clearly required application of the rule “pay minus pension”.
At the same time, the Court opined that the lackadaisical and ignorant attitude of AIIMS had led to this controversy. Hence, it was not fair to seek retrospective recovery of the amount already paid to the doctors, at this belated stage for no fault on theirs.
Title: Mohammad Anwar v the Chairman, Rajashtan NEET Ayush, and Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 204
The Rajasthan High Court granted relief to a student whose provisional admission in Rajashtan Unani Medical College, Jaipur, was cancelled after he could not submit original mark-sheets of clearing Biology from the Rajasthan State Open School. It was ruled that if the candidate had met substantive thresholds, strict compliance with technical formalities undermined the object of the admission scheme.
The bench of Justice Sameer Jain held that clauses 23 and 31 of the National Council For Indian System of Medicine (NCISM) had to be interpreted using the principles of “Ejusdem Generis” and “Noscitur a Sociis” to mean that while final approval of admission could not be granted without original documents, it did not mandate outright cancellation of a provisional admission if the failure to comply was due to reasons beyond candidate's control.
Title: Shekharchand Sacheti & Anr. v S.M.F.G. India Home Finance Company Limited & Anr.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 205
Rajasthan High Court ruled that since the respondent was already aware of and was not taken by surprise regarding petitioner's invocation of arbitration clause, their plea that the application for appointment of arbitrator was not maintainable since no notice was served under Section 21 of the A&C Act 1996, lacked merit.
The bench of Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand also reiterated the principle laid down in the case of M.D. Frozen Foods Exports Private Limited & others v. Hero Fincorp Limited that the SARFAESI Proceedings were in the nature of enforcement while arbitration was an adjudicatory proceedings. Hence, both could proceed parallel.
Title: Hdfc Bank Limited v Nagar Parishad Jhunjhunu (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6676/2025)
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 206
The Rajasthan High Court (Jaipur Bench) of Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand, recently, passed an interim order in a writ petition filed by HDFC bank. In the interim order, the court stayed the effect and operation of a demand notice issued by the Nagar Parishad Jhunjhunu to HDFC Bank.
While considering the contentions raised by the petitioner, the court ordered that the operation and effect of the impugned notice by the Municipal corporation be stayed until the next date of hearing. The bench also clarified that the interim order would come into effect only after the service of notice upon the respondents.
Title: Mohammad Abid & Ors. v State of Rajasthan
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 207
The Rajasthan High Court recently noted that Section 170 of the BNSS conferred “limited preventive jurisdiction” to the Executive Magistrate and that such preventive action was not a tool for punitive action or a substitute for criminal procedure.
Justice Farjand Ali criticised the action of an Executive Magistrate in detaining persons and granting them bail on an extra-statutory condition of producing a character certificate. The court noted that instead of operating as a Magistrate under a Constitutional democracy, the Executive Magistrate had acted like a “Raja” dispensing justice at whim.
“It is evident that the Executive Magistrate, instead of acting in accordance with the limited preventive jurisdiction vested in him under B.N.S.S., has arrogated to himself an authority akin to that of a sovereign — operating not as a magistrate under a constitutional democracy, but more as a Raja dispensing justice at whim. The distinction between personal discretion and rule of law lies at the very foundation of our legal system, and the impugned conduct strikes at that very foundation”.
Title: Ramswaroop v Moolchand & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 208
Rajasthan High Court has ruled that Appellate Rent Tribunal is not expected to reserve judgment for an indefinite period, especially when the arguments in a matter before it were heard and concluded months ago.
The bench of Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand observed that as per Section 19(8) of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001, the Tribunal shall dispose the appeal within a period of one hundred and eighty days from the date of service of notice of appeal on the respondents.
Reference was made to the Supreme Court case of Balaji Baliram Mupade & Ors. v. the State of Maharashtra & Ors. in which the Apex Court considered it imperative that judicial discipline required promptness in delivery of judgments. Similarly, in another case of Anil Rai v State of Bihar, it was held that once the matters were reserved for pronouncement of order, the same should be done within a reasonable time schedule.
Title: Shankar Lal v Jugal Kishore & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 209
While relying upon the ruling of the division bench in the case of Ramesh Kumar v Chandu Lal & Another, Rajasthan High Court reiterated that Section 15 of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 (“the Act”) was not mandatory but directory in nature.
The bench of Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand was hearing a petition challenging the order of the Rent Tribunal that rejected the petitioner's application to take on record the affidavit submitted by him on the ground that as per Section 15, these had to be submitted along with the reply.
Title: State of Rajasthan v Sharafat & Anr, and other connected matter
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 210
While setting aside death penalty and acquitting the appellants, accused for murdering a family of 6, including 4 children, Rajasthan High Court held that the importance of last-seen-together evidence could not be "over-emphasized" in a criminal trial as this by itself is not sufficient to record conviction of an accused.
The division bench of Justice Shree Chandrashekhar and Justice Chandra Shekhar Sharma opined that before the onus shifted on the accused by operation of Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, it must be held that the prosecution had established a prima facie case against the accused.
Reference was made to the Apex Court case of Rajender @ Rajesh @ Raju v State in which it was held that if a person was last seen with the deceased, he must offer explanation about how he parted company, and if he failed burden under Section 106 was not discharged. However, this did not mean that section 106 shifted the burden of proof of a criminal trial on the accused. Such burden always rested on the prosecution.
Title: Bhawani Pratap Singh v State of Rajasthan
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 211
While denying regular bail to an NDPS accused, Rajasthan High Court granted a temporary bail of 60 days to take care of his wife who was pregnant, due to deliver a baby in a few days, and had no one else to take care of her and provide medical assistance.
The bench of Justice Farjand Ali opined that even though such ground in itself was not sufficient to warrant regular bail, temporary bail could be granted as a balanced approach to accommodate legitimate personal concerns of the accused, while upholding legal sanctity and custodial process.
Title: Hari Ram & Ors. v State of Rajasthan & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 212
Dismissing a bunch of petitions filed by the alleged encroachers of the catchment area of the Ummed Sagar Dam against State's action of dispossession, the bench of Justice Sunil Beniwal at the Rajasthan High Court held that no possession over land forming part of water body could be regularized.
After hearing the contentions, the Court accepted the arguments put forth on behalf of the State, and highlighted that the land in question was owned by the P.H.E.D. Department and formed part of the catchment area of the Ummed Sagar Dam.
Rajasthan High Court Upholds 25% Domicile Reservation In National Law University Jodhpur
Title: Anindita Biswas v National Law University, Jodhpur & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 213
The Rajasthan High Court upheld the constitutional validity of 25% domicile-based reservation at National Law University, Jodhpur (“NLUJ”), ruling that such reservation did not violate Article 14 since the classification was reasonable, non-arbitrary and maintained a rational nexus with the object of advancing regional educational development.
The division bench of Dr. Justice Pushpendra Singh Bhati and Justice Chandra Prakash Shrimali took note of many other NLUs that have introduced domicile-based reservation based on their respective states, and opined that the state had merely aligned NLUJ with the normative structure followed by its sister NLUs.
Reference was also made to the Supreme Court case of Dr. Pradeep Jain v. Union of India, wherein the Apex Court recognized the permissibility of domicile-based preferences in admissions to higher educational institutions particularly when the institutions were established and maintained by a State.
When Can An Order Passed U/S 47 CPC Be Treated As A Decree? Rajasthan High Court Explains
The Rajasthan High Court has observed that orders passed by courts under Section 47 of the CPC read with Order XXI Rules 58, 97, and 99 of the CPC, would be treated as decrees and are appealable under Section 96 CPC.
Justice Munnuri Laxman noted that Section 47 dealt with both— orders that can be treated as decrees and those that cannot be treated as decrees. The court added that those orders which were passed with reference to Rule 58, 97, and 99 would be considered as decrees as the same has been specifically provided under Rule 58(4) and Rule 103 of Order XXI.
The court noted that all other orders passed under Section 47 [except those under Rule 58,97, and 99] could not be treated as a decree. The court added that since an appeal would lie only from a decree passed by the court as per Section 96, the orders passed under Section 47 read with Rule 58,97 and, 99 were appealable orders and all other orders passed under Section 47 would not be appealable orders.
Title: X v Y
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 214
Title: Banarsi Das Mittal v the State of Rajasthan & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 215
Upholding the constitutional validity of the Proviso 3 to Rule 16(2) (“the Provision”) of the Rajasthan Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2017 (“2017 Rules”) Rajasthan High Court ruled that once the rule was held to be constitutionally and statutorily valid, any action by the State in furtherance thereof could not be faulted merely on grounds of hardship or inconvenience.
The Provision provided for extension of the Letter of Intent (LOI) issued subject to payment of a penalty at the rate of 10% of the annual dead rent for every month for such extended period from the date of issuance of LOI.
The division bench of Dr. Justice Pushpendra Singh Bhati and Justice Chandra Prakash Shrimali also observed that mining activity had significant environmental and economic implications, and delays in securing mandatory clearances, even if procedurally cumbersome, could not indefinitely stall the process. “In the broader public interest, the legislature is entitled to place the onus on the applicant to comply expeditiously with statutory prerequisites”.
Title: Ankit Bansal v Union of India
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 216
Rajasthan High Court denied bail to Ankit Bansal, accused in a Rs. 704 Crore GST evasion scam, on account of his concealment of past criminal antecedents, attempt to abscond from custody using his influence and power, and the magnitude of the siphoned amount.
The bench of Justice Anand Sharma rejected the argument of parity on account of the co-accused Mr. Rajesh Goyal being released on bail, ruling that while applying the principle of parity, conduct and role of the accused had to be focused upon.
Rejecting the argument of parity with the co-accused who had been granted bail, the Court specifically referred to the “extraordinary circumstances” in the applicant's case.
“there are clear and manifest antecedents against the petitioner (which have been suppressed by the petitioner) and the magnitude of allegations against him is quite higher, which is crossing more than 700 Crores. Since during the pendency of instant bail application, the accused-petitioner has attempted to abscond, which evidently involves extraordinary circumstances…Hence, in the light of the above possibility of his absconding and influencing the witnesses can not be ruled out.”
Title: Mushtaq Ali v State of Rajasthan
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 217
While acquitting a police constable charged under Section 223 (IPC) following absconsion of two under-trial prisons from his guard, Rajasthan High Court held that when a police officer was tasked with dual and simultaneous duties like guarding as well as attending wireless operations, expectations of flawless supervision must be weighed against practical limitations of manpower and infrastructure.
The bench of Justice Farjand Ali further held that the primary requirement of Section 223 i.e. criminal negligence, was fulfilled on gross and culpable failure to exercise the degree of care which an ordinarily prudent and reasonable person would exercise in similar circumstances. Not every error in judgment, lapse, or inadvertence constituted criminal negligence.
Title: Smt. Kailash Kanwar Rathore & Ors. v State of Rajasthan
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 218
Rajasthan High Court highlighted the growing concern of Indian businesses and corporate entities owing to unwarranted freezing of bank accounts by the investigating authorities in a mechanical manner implicating significant financial hardships on the concerned parties.
The bench of Justice Manoj Kumar Garg opined that such actions were frequently predicated merely on allegations or suspicion of tainted funds being credited into the accounts of innocent business entities or individuals that severely impaired operational functioning of the business.
Title: X v The State of Rajasthan & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 219
The Rajasthan High Court dismissed a petition filed by a mother seeking termination of pregnancy of her minor daughter (17 years, 5 months old) in light of the daughter's unwillingness to abort the pregnancy, upholding the right of a pregnant minor victim to retain her pregnancy.
Highlighting that the minor victim had sufficient level of understanding about the consequences of her actions, the bench of Justice Chandra Prakash Shrimali observed that pregnant woman had the autonomy over her body and it was only she who had the right to choose whether to terminate the pregnancy or not.
Reference was made to the Supreme Court case of Suchita Srivastava & Anr. Vs. Chandigarh Administration wherein it was held that right to make reproductive choices was a facet of Art. 21, and the consent of the pregnant women in the matter of such choices was paramount. No entity, even the state, could speak on behalf of the pregnant person and usurp her consent.
Title: Mahir Bishnoi v National Testing Agency & Anr.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 220
The Rajasthan High Court has granted relief to an IIT-JEE aspirant who was barred by the National Testing Agency from giving the exam for academic sessions 2025-26 and 2026-27 after he was allegedly found using unfair means and was looking into the answer sheet of a fellow candidate sitting right adjacent to him.
While highlighting that such a stigmatising penalty could not have been inflicted without providing an opportunity of hearing, the bench of Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand opined that the inflicted penalty would certainly spoil the petitioner's career and create an impediment on his way to getting public employment.
Title: Ashutosh Bajoria v Rajesh Kumar Sharma (S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 12/2023)
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 221
The Rajasthan High Court has allowed a man, arrested in a PMLA case, to travel to Dubai and Singapore for business meetings— reiterating that the expression 'personal liberty' under Article 21 of the Constitution includes the right to go abroad.
Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand referred to the Supreme Court's decision in Smt. Maneka Gandhi v Union of India (1978) where it was held that “the expression 'personal liberty' under Article 21 of the Constitution of India has a wider amplitude, which includes right to go abroad. A person cannot be deprived to this right except in accordance with the procedure prescribed by the law”.