Citations: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 1 To 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 124

Orders/Judgments of the Month

January 2025

Rajasthan HC Cancels Air Force Personnel's Anticipatory Bail Due To Misrepresentation, Hiding True Facts Like Grievous Injury Caused to Victim

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.

Not Issuing Provisional Answer Key Or Inviting Objections During Recruitment Process Violates Fundamental Rights Of Candidates: Rajasthan HC

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.

Claim Bill/Voucher Not Akin To Notice Under Carriage By Road Act Which Is A Precondition For Instituting Legal Proceedings: Rajasthan HC

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.

Magistrate Must Show Disagreement With Police's Negative Final Report While Taking Cognizance Of Offence On A Protest Plea: Rajasthan HC

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.

Rajasthan Tenancy Act | Land Recorded As “For Mining Purposes” In Revenue Records Cannot Be Used For Agricultural Purposes: High Court

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.

Rajasthan HC Sets Aside Termination Of Govt Employee For Appearing As Dummy Candidate In Exam, Says Charge Wasn't Included In Charge-Sheet

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.”

Judicial Restraint Paramount For Cognizance In Medico-Legal Cases: Rajasthan HC Exonerates Doctors Charged Of Forging Pathological Report

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.

Rajasthan High Court Questions Special POCSO Judge For Denying Bail To Man Not Named In Victim Statement

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.”

Rajasthan HC Directs Tax Commissioner To Recall 'Contemptuous Order' Denying Benefit Of Entertainment Tax Scheme To Cinema Theatre

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.

MV Act | Show Cause Notices, Inquiry By Registering Authority Other Than Original Registering Authority Not Illegal: Rajasthan High Court

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.

NEET Spot Counselling Is Continuation Of Process To Fill Seats, Prospectus Conditions Applicable: Rajasthan High Court

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.

Cheque Dishonour: Rajasthan High Court Sets Aside Conviction After Compromise, But Imposes 15% Cost On Drawer Citing Failed Appeal

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…”

Rajasthan HC Upholds Reversal Of Certain Teachers' Promotion To Maintain Seniority, Says Not Granting Them Hearing Caused No Prejudice

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.

Rajasthan HC Slams State For Denying Mason Post To Man With Amputation In Non-Dominant Hand, Appointing Man With Amputation In Dominant Hand Instead

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.

Party Can't Bypass Sessions Court And Directly Move High Court In Revision Against Order Framing Charge, Court Already Flooded: Rajasthan HC

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".

Successive Petitions U/S 482 CrPC Not Entertainable If Filed Without Any Change Of Facts Or Circumstances: Rajasthan High Court Reiterates

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.

Forfeiting 26 Yrs Of Constable's Service Over 15-Days Unsanctioned Leave Due To Medical Emergency Shocks Court's Conscience: Rajasthan HC

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.

Rajasthan HC Sets Aside Employee's Demotion From Post Held For 17 Years, Says Decision Rejecting Peer's Plea Seeking Same Relief Not In Rem

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.

S.498A IPC | Circular Barring Husband From Seeking Govt Employment Due To Wife's Pending Cruelty Case Violates Article 14, 21: Rajasthan HC

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".

Commercial Court Committed Jurisdictional Error By Imposing Pre-Condition To Deposit 50% Of Amount For Stay Against Arbitral Award: Rajasthan HC

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.

2013 Rape Case | Rajasthan High Court Grants Interim Bail To Asaram Bapu Till March 31 For Medical Treatment

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.

'Not Given Opportunity To Defend Himself': Rajasthan HC Expunges Adverse Remarks Against Advocate For Allegedly Using 'Undisciplined Language'

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.”

Rajasthan High Court Declines To Interfere With Mother's Custody Of Children, Notes Their Wish To Not Stay With Their Father

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".

LIC Suffered No Loss, Gained More Business: Rajasthan HC Quashes Recovery Order Against Officer For Not Reporting Agent In Govt Service

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".

Denying Regularization From Correct Date By Making Distinction Based On Initial Nature Of Work Arbitrary, Violates Art. 14, 16: Rajasthan HC

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”.

Rajasthan HC Permits Law Students To Sit For Exam To Govt Post, Who Were Barred Earlier After Change In Eligibility Criteria Mid Process

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.

Accused's Right To Fair Trial To Seek Call Detail Record U/S 91 CrPC In Trap Case Prevails Over Police's Right To Privacy: Rajasthan HC

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.

Gratuity A Legal Right Not Bounty: Rajasthan HC Slaps ₹25K Fine On Engineering Institute For Frivolous Litigation Against Deceased Employee

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.

Rajasthan HC Directs Medical Reimbursement To Retired Govt Lecturer, Earlier Denied Due To Treatment At Unrecognized Private Hospital

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…”

Rajasthan HC Stays Suspension Of Govt Medical Officer Arrested For Allegedly Aiding In Forging Marksheet, Says He Was Not A Beneficiary

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.”

Only Chief Secretary/ Administrative Reforms Dept Can Direct Joint Inquiry Against Delinquents From Different Departments: Rajasthan HC

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"

Section 143A NI Act | Interim Compensation To Complainant In Cheque Bounce Case Introduced In 2018 Amendment Is Prospective: Rajasthan HC

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".

Delay In Conducting Qualifying Exam By State Can't Be Attributed To Candidate: Rajasthan HC Directs Regularization Of Service From Prescribed Date

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.

Unsuccessful Candidate Can't Challenge Expert Opinion Later, Claiming That Self Assessment Showed His Answers To Be Correct: Rajasthan HC

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".

Rajasthan High Court Directs DM To Decide Within 4 Days Prisoner's Application For Parole To Support Wife During Child Birth

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.”

Purpose Of S.82 CrPC Is To Secure Accused's Presence, Once Achieved Property Attachment Proceedings Must Be Dropped: Rajasthan HC Reiterates

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".

Rajasthan HC Makes Exception For Widow Declared Ineligible For Job For Having More Than 2 Children, Considers Her Socio-Economic Condition

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.

Asking Nursing Officer With Advanced Stage Pregnancy To Serve 500 Kms Away From Residence Violative Of Her Right To Health: Rajasthan HC

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.

Yoga Not Recognized As 'Sport' By Ministry, No Bonus Marks For Selection As PT Instructor: Rajasthan High Court

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.”

Rajasthan HC Slams State For Transferring 8-Month Pregnant Officer 320 Km Away From Current Posting, Orders Sensitization Of Authority

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.

Seem To Be Passed In Great Haste: Rajasthan HC Tells State To Decide Afresh On Transfer Of 1116 Accounts Officers Ensuring Non-Arbitrariness

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".

Rajasthan High Court Directs State Police To File Affidavit On Steps Taken Against 'Menace' Of Online Sale Of E-Cigarettes

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".

No Provision For Law Enforcement To Conduct Arrests Via Video Calls: Rajasthan HC Takes Suo Motu Cognizance Of 'Digital Arrest Scams'

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.

Rajasthan HC Issues Notice On Plea Against Circular Classifying Transgender Persons As OBCs, Seeks Implementation Of Horizontal Reservation

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.

Can Married Persons In Live-In Relationship With Others Seek Protection Orders? Rajasthan High Court Refers To Larger Bench

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 ?"

'Live-In Relationships Must Be Registered With Govt Authority Till Law Is Formulated To Govern Them': Rajasthan High 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.

Rajasthan HC Stays State Bar Council Resolution Extending Tenure Of Bar Association Members, Appoints Interim Administrative Committee

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.

February 2025

State To Consider 'Exceptional Personal Hardships' Faced By Employees: Rajasthan HC Sets Aside Transfer Of Nurse Who Looks After Aged Mother

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.

34 Yrs On, Rajasthan HC Sets Aside Rape Conviction Citing Failure To Conduct Test Identification Parade, Asks State To Properly Instruct IOs

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”.

Mere "Benefit Of Doubt" Acquittal Can't Be Used As Ruse To Deprive Employee Of Legitimate Financial Entitlements: Rajasthan HC

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.

Reflects State Officials' Adamancy To Not Let Go Of Administrative Superiority: Rajasthan HC Stays Transfer Of 1000 Panchayat Officers

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.

Necessity Of Rented Property For Bonafide Use Is To Be Adjudged From Landlord's Perspective, Not From Perspective Of Tenant: Rajasthan HC

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.

"Alarming Situation": Rajasthan HC Orders Authorities To Restore Bank's Possession Over Mortgaged Property Forcibly Taken By Defaulter

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.

Has No Sanction Of Law: Rajasthan HC Sets Aside Proceedings Initiated Under Prevention Of Food Adulteration Act After Its Repeal

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.

Denying Employment To Convict Let Off On Probation Defeats 'Rehabilitation & Re-Integration' Purpose Of Statute: Rajasthan HC

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.

'Inordinate Delay Made Trial Nugatory, Violates Article 21 Of Accused': Rajasthan HC Quashes 23-Yr-Old Tree Felling Criminal Case 'In Rem'

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.”

Woman Migrating From Haryana To Rajasthan Post Marriage Doesn't Disentitle Her To Seek Benefit Of EWS Scheme: High Court

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.

Panchayati Raj Department Can Accord Post-Facto Consent For Transfers But Employees With Extenuating Situations Must Be Heard: Rajasthan HC

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.

State Free To Decide Eligibility Criteria Unless Shown Arbitrary: Rajasthan HC Rejects Challenge To Padmesh Mishra's Appointment As AAG In SC

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.

'Employer Must Make Efforts To Expedite Departmental Proceedings Against Delinquent Employee', Rajasthan High Court

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.

Person Belonging To 'Teli' Caste Can't Be Denied OBC Reservation Merely For Being From Muslim Community: Rajasthan High Court

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.

Rajasthan HC Flags State Officials' Failure To Adequately Assist Courts, Govt Counsel In Pending Matters; Warns Of Disciplinary Action

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.

State, Private Employers Must Endeavor To Conclude Departmental Action Against Delinquent Employee Within 6 Months: Rajasthan HC

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.

No Bonus Marks For Work Experience In Absence Of Actual Physical Work: Rajasthan HC Rejects Claim Of Nurses Appointed After Revised Result

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.

Suit For Partition Of Agricultural Land Can Be Decided By Civil Court If No Dispute Regarding Tenancy Rights Are Involved: Rajasthan HC

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.

Sale, Bequest Of Tenancy Rights By Member Of SC/ST Category To Person Who Isn't From Community Is Void Under State Tenancy Law: Rajasthan HC

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".

Availing Employee's Services Without Pay Violates Fundamental Right Against 'Begar': Rajasthan HC Slams State Over Unpaid Dues Since 2016

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.

No Vicarious Liability: Rajasthan HC Quashes FIR Against Daughter Registered After Father In Criminal Case Transferred Her Some Money

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.

Uncorroborated Expert Evidence Not Enough To Convict When Key Witnesses Turn Hostile: Rajasthan High Court Upholds Acquittal In POCSO Case

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".

Proceedings Against Delinquent Employee Are Abated On His Death Since No One Else Can Effectively Defend Allegations: Rajasthan High Court

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.”

Child Care Leave Akin To 'Privilege Leave', Not Unfettered Right: Rajasthan HC Says State Not Mandated To Grant Leave For Maximum Period Of 120 Days

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.”

Right To Be Forgotten By Destroying Records Of Juvenile Delinquency Is Absolute, Has To Be Given Full Meaning By The State: Rajasthan HC

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.

Customs Officers Who Assaulted Complainant To 'Extract Truth' Cannot Be Said To Have Acted Outside Official Duties: Rajasthan High Court

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.”

Can't Have Two FIRs For Same Accusation, Trial Court Didn't Consider Negative Report Before Cognizance: Rajasthan HC Exonerates Man Of Charges

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".

Rajasthan High Court Orders State To Release Retiral Benefits Of Employee Who Was Granted Premature Voluntary Retirement

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.”

NDPS Act | Judicial Custody Beyond 60 Days Without Chargesheet Is Unlawful: Rajasthan HC Orders Police To Obtain FSL Reports Within 60 Days

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".

S.15A SC/ST Act | Complainant Can Be Told About Bail Hearing By SMS, WhatsApp: Rajasthan HC Instructs Police To Produce Proof/Screenshot

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.

Being A Religious Place, 'Masjid' Falls Under 'Waqf' Definition, Only Waqf Tribunal Can Adjudicate Disputes Related To It: Rajasthan HC

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.

Medical Education Needs High Standards, It Affects Public Healthcare: Rajasthan HC Nixes Students' Pleas Barred From Exam For Less Attendance

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".

Denying Public Employment To Meritorious Disabled Candidates Due To Partial Disability In Some Other Body Part Bad In Law: Rajasthan HC

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".

NEET-PG: Rajasthan High Court Issues Notice To Admission Board Chairman On Plea Over Round-3 Counselling

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.

Disproportionate: Rajasthan HC Quashes CRPF Constable's Dismissal For Entering Fellow Constable's Home When Only His Wife Was Present

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".

No Illegality, Procedure Was Followed: Rajasthan HC Upholds State University's Notification Increasing College Affiliation Fee For 2025-26

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.

Rajasthan High Court Stays 800 Kilometers Far Transfer Of Lecturer Who Filed Sexual Harassment Complaint Against Govt School Principal

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.

Centre Notifies Appointment Of Advocate Maneesh Sharma As Rajasthan High Court Judge Over 3 Yrs After SC Collegium Recommendation

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.

Rajasthan High Court Restrains CAT From Taking Coercive Action Against Peon Who Refused To Clean Toilets Claiming It Wasn't Her Duty

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.

March 2025

Rajasthan HC Rejects Challenge To Appointment Of Administrator For 49 Municipalities After Expiry Of Tenure Of Existing Elected Members

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.”

Rajasthan High Court Issues Contempt Notice To State University For Withholding Annual Affiliation Of Medical College Despite Court Order

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.”

Rajasthan High Court Calls For Mechanism To Expunge Record Of Minor Offences By Juveniles To Enable Easy Rehabilitation

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.

Shocking: Rajasthan HC Reinstates Head-Constable Dismissed For Merely Being Related To Candidate Who Used Imposter In Recruitment Race

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.

Man Has No Fundamental Right To Live-In Relationship With A Married Woman, Particularly When She Appears To Be His Own Sister: Rajasthan HC

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.

No Hearing Given: Rajasthan HC Quashes Trial Court Order Making Adverse Remarks Against Circle Officer For Alleged Negligence In Probe

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.

Unsuccessful In All Attempts: Rajasthan HC Rejects Candidate's Challenge To Policy On Officers' Selection To Commission In Army Dental Corps

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.

[Compassionate Appointment] Law Prevailing On Date Of Employee's Death Applicable Irrespective Of When Application For Appointment Was Submitted: Rajasthan HC

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.”

Married Daughter Being Sole Surviving Family Member Of Deceased Govt Employee Is Entitled To Compassionate Employment: Rajasthan HC

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.

Paying Only Subsistence Allowance To Employee Suspended Due To Criminal Case And Later Acquitted Without Dept Proceedings Amounts To Punishment: Rajasthan HC

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.”

Not An Isolated Incident But "Well-Orchestrated Racket": Rajasthan High Court Denies Bail To Eight Accused In Teacher Paper Leak Case

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.”

Change In Directors Doesn't Amount To Transfer Of Company's Property Or Evasion Of Stamp Duty: Rajasthan High Court

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.”

'Man In Uniform' Being Unauthorizedly Absent From Duty, Sending False Information About His Death Is Gross Misconduct: Rajasthan High Court

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".

Tenancy Act | Subordinate Court's Ad-Interim Order Not A Decided Case, Revision Plea Not Maintainable Before Revenue Board: Rajasthan HC

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".

Highly Improper To Direct Chief Justice To Relax Procedure: Rajasthan HC In Court Staff's Plea For Promotion Without Holding Efficiency Test

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.

Section 161 CrPC | Witness Statements Recorded During Probe Not Enough To Convict: Rajasthan HC Upholds 34-Yr-Old Murder Acquittal

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.

Remained Silent Till 2016: Rajasthan HC Modifies Order On Payment Of Benefits To Lecturer From 1998 When She Got PhD, Says She Caused Delay

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.

State Ignored Its Own Obligations, Unilaterally Penalised Contractor Overlooking Difficulties Faced In Completing Canal Construction: Rajasthan HC

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.

Party Can Inquire Case Status From His Counsel, Mere Lack Of Communication With Lawyer Not Ground To Condone Delay In Filing Appeal: Rajasthan HC

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.

Can't Allow Candidates Who Contest For Diploma Post Despite Holding Degree To Be Transferred To Cadre Of Degree Holders: Rajasthan HC

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.”

Circular To Recommend Candidate 45 Days Before Expiry Of Waiting List Not Meant To Curtail 6-Month Validity Period Of Wait List: Rajasthan HC

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.”

Court Cannot Act As Disciplinary Authority To Decide Correctness Of Allegations Against Delinquent Employee: Rajasthan HC

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.

Rajasthan High Court Grants Relief To Contractual Employee Who Was Given Only 2 Months Maternity Leave In 2008

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.

Rajasthan HC Grants Bail To Husband Accused Of Abetting Wife's Suicide, Says He May Have Beaten Her But Prima Facie No 'Instigation' Established

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.

Can't Protect Illegal Appointment: Rajasthan HC Dismisses Plea By Asst Prof Candidate Whose Appointment Was Cancelled Over Wrong PhD Completion Date

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.”

Candidate With 90% Hearing Impairment Erroneously Not Considered Under PwD Category: Rajasthan HC Directs Appointment On Humanitarian Grounds

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.”

Rajasthan HC Suggests Constitution Of Expert Panel To Examine Retired Govt Employees Grievance On Restoration Of Full Pension Under Rules

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".

S.45 Indian Evidence Act | Court Can Refuse Expert Opinion For Comparing Signatures If No Doubt Exists Regarding Genuineness: Rajasthan HC

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.

Allowing Quashing Of Non-Compoundable Offences Like Kidnapping, Theft Based On Compromise Will Set 'Dangerous Precedent': Rajasthan HC

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. 

Composite Enquiry Against Multiple Delinquent Employees Possible Only If They Have Common Disciplinary Authority: Rajasthan HC

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.

MV Act | Compensation Awarded As 'Consortium' Is Also Payable To Siblings Of Deceased Apart From Parents: Rajasthan High Court Reiterates

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".

Imminent Threat To Public Peace Must Be Shown For Taking Action U/S 145 CrPC, Can't Be A Vague Assertion: Rajasthan High Court Reiterates

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.”

State Cannot Deny Change Of Land Records In Favour Of Allottee Who Deposited Full Amount Merely Because Govt Official Embezzled Money: Rajasthan HC

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.

Rajasthan High Court Appoints Panel To Probe Illegal Activities Of Khap Panchayats, Social Evils Like Honour Killing, Exorcism, Etc

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.

Rajasthan High Court Issues Guidelines On Suspension Of Govt Employees Where Disciplinary Proceedings Are Contemplated, Pending

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.

Industrial Disputes Act | Sundays And Other Paid Holidays Taken Into Account For Treating Continuous Service Of Workman: Rajasthan HC

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.

'For 20 Yrs He Was Sleeping': Rajasthan High Court Rejects Govt Employee's Plea Against 2002 Penalty Stopping Yearly Increments

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".

Eligibility Should Be Checked At Threshold, Not After Selection: Rajasthan HC Orders Appointment Of Asha Worker Denied Post Despite Selection

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.

IPR Violation Affects Public Interest, Courts Should Be Prompt In Granting Interim Injunction: Rajasthan High Court

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”.

Rajasthan HC Orders Woman's Appointment As Clerk Denied For Taking Back Original Documents In Bonafide Belief That Selection Process Is Over

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. 

Rajasthan HC Orders Regularization Of Govt Employee Withdrawn Citing Educational Criteria Despite Favourable Court Orders, Fines ₹2 Lakh

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.

Jurisdictional Assessing Officer Lacks Jurisdiction To Issue Reassessment Notices U/S 148 Of Income Tax Act: Rajasthan High Court

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.

S.273 CrPC | Rajasthan HC Allows Six Booked In 259 Cases To Attend Trial Via VC, Says It Expects State To Amend Law On Appearance Of Accused

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.