Rajasthan High Court
/
Rajasthan High Court Monthly...

Rajasthan High Court Monthly Digest: April 2025

Nupur Agrawal

17 May 2025 10:28 AM IST

No Finding That Drop In Marks Was Due To Him: Rajasthan HC Quashes Censure Against Chemistry Teacher For School's Poor 12th Board Result

Title: Rajesh Kumar v State of Rajasthan & Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 126

The Rajasthan High Court set aside the penalty of censure imposed on a school teacher in relation to a charge that the12th Board Exam result in Chemistry of the concerned school remained below the standard fixed by the Department of Education.

Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand observed that "there was no allegation that the result of the concerned school dropped due to commission or omission on part of the petitioner" in which case, he could not have been penalized under Rule 17 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958 (“the Rules”).

"The result remained below the norms fixed by the Department of Education, may be for several reasons and without arriving at a finding that the result came down due to commission or omission on the part of the petitioner, the petitioner could not have been penalized under Rule 17 of the Rules of 1958," it said.

Closure Of Hostel Mess During Covid-19 Didn't Scrap Post: Rajasthan HC Orders Private School To Reinstate Workers Terminated Without Process

Title: Management Committee, Bharatiya Vidya Bhavan Vidyashram & Anr.v Rameshwar Lal Meena & Anr., and other connected petitions

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 127

Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand at the Rajasthan High Court directed reinstatement of hostel-mess workers of Bharatiya Vidya Bhawan Vidyashram school–run by the Bharatiya Vidya Bhawan educational trust–who were terminated without following the prescribed procedure, ruling that a decision to close the hostel mess did not amount to abolition of the post.

In doing so the court underscored that procedure as per Section 18 of the Rajasthan Non- Government Educational Institutions Act, 1989 was applicable which was not followed in the present case as a termination order of an employee of a recognized institution can be passed only after holding departmental enquiry and with prior permission of Director of Education.

The court however said reinstatement of the employees would not necessarily resulted in payment of 50% back wages as sought by them. It thus said that in the present case the employees could not prove that they remained unemployed during the period of their termination from service.

Executing Court Erred In Seeking Transfer Certificate To Execute Award When It Had Jurisidiction To Entertain Application: Rajasthan HC Sets Aside Order

Title: Gas Authority of India Limited versus M/s Mahima Real Estate (P) Limited

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 128

The Rajasthan High Court bench of Justice Narendra Singh Dhaddha has held that the Executing Court had committed an error in directing to furnish the transfer certificate for executing an award when it already had jurisdiction to hear the application.

Court said that when the property was situated in Jaipur, the executing court had jurisdiction to entertain the execution application. So, the orders dated 12.10.2018 and 13.03.2019 passed by the Executing Court deserve to be set aside, the court added.

Unregistered Deed Can Be Placed On Record For Collateral Purposes Subject To Payment Of Stamp Duty, Penalty & Proof Of Relevancy: Rajasthan HC

Title: Mohammad Salim & Ors. v Abdul Kayyum & Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 129

Rajasthan High Court set aside an order of the Trial Court that did not take on record an unregistered partition deed in a suit for permanent injunction, observing that the petitioner could reply upon the partition deed to the extent for collateral purpose pursuant to payment of stamp duty, penalty and proof of relevancy.

The bench of Dr. Justice Nupur Bhati relied upon the Supreme Court decision in the case of Sita Ram Bharma v Ramavtar Bharma and opined that the Apex Court had held that,

“Hon'ble Apex Court also pondered on the aspect that whether a document which is inadmissible in evidence could have been used for any collateral purpose and held that in a suit for partition, an unregistered document can be relied upon for collateral purpose i.e. severancy of title, nature of possession of various shares but not for the primary purpose i.e. division of joint properties by metes and bounds.”

Drugs & Cosmetics Act | Failed Dissolution Test When Active Content Is Within Limit Is Minor Defect, Does Not Warrant Prosecution: Rajasthan HC

Title: Ganesh Narayan Nayak & Anr. v State of Rajasthan & Anr., and other connected petitions

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 130

Finding various procedural lapses, the Rajasthan High Court quashed a 2017 complaint under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act highlighting that the case was filed when a drug sample had purportedly failed the dissolution test even though the same had an active ingredient which was within the standard limits.

In doing so Justice Farjand Ali observed that as per the prescribed guidelines and Supreme Court's decisions, such a defect was a "minor defect" for which prosecution is impermissible. It was observed that a delayed dissolution did not render the drug useless as it merely implied a slower release of the active content without affecting its efficacy.

Among other lapses the court noted that the Drugs Control Officer had failed to comply with the statutory requirement under Section 25(3) which mandates sending a portion of the sample to the manufacturer for reanalysis in case of a disputed report.

'Citizens Can't Be Treated As Cattle': Rajasthan HC Takes Suo Motu Cognizance Of Heatwave Crisis, Expresses Pain At State's Inaction

Title: IN RE: “Beat the Heatwave and Climatic Change to Save the Life of Public at Large” v. Union of India

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 131

In the wake of the prevailing heatwave crisis, the Rajasthan High Court has taken suo motu cognizance to find out speedy solutions to “save citizens” from the scorching heatwave condition in the state which poses as life threatening to the citizens, especially the vulnerable populations like elderly people, children, outdoor workers and those without access to cooling.

Highlighting the abject inaction of the state officials to formulate countermeasures to combat the extreme climate and reprimanding them for “sleeping over the current emergent situation of heatwaves”, Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand remarked,

“The people of the State are suffering from extreme heatwaves and heat strokes. Citizens of the State cannot be treated as cattle. Every human being as well as every living being, be they animals or birds, has a right to life. This Court cannot shut its eyes to the poor functioning of State officials in such emergent circumstances. A welfare State and its officials cannot be allowed to escape from their duties and liabilities arising from any casualties caused in the State due to extreme heatwave situation.”

Officers-In-Charge Handling Department Cases Casually: Rajasthan HC Suggests Improvement Measures, Warns Of Imposing Cost On Erring Officials

Title: Badri Narayan Sharma v State of Rajasthan & Anr.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 132

The Rajasthan High Court expressed its "pain" over “condemnable negligence and lethargic attitude” of Officers-in-Charge of various departments in not providing the original case file to their respective government counsels observing that it "hampers the process of providing justice to the litigants”.

In doing so Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand issued important measures for speeding up cases noting that the same are treated with a lack of seriousness and urgency by the Officers in Charge for reasons best known to them. The court emphasized the improvement can be be through enhanced coordination between departments, continuous training and adoption of technology such as Artificial Intelligence.

It thus issued notice to various officials in the state government to the effect that the Officers-in-Charge shall perform all the duties and work, assigned and specified to them from time to time so that unnecessarily delay is not caused. It also said that if sufficient assistance is not provided to the court by departments, cost would be imposed which would be recovered from the pocket of the "erring/defaulting officer, after following due process of law".

Re-Evaluation Marks Can't Relate Back To Date Of Original Result For Ineligible Candidate To Claim Eligibility For Appointment: Rajasthan HC

Title: Kiran Yadav v the State of Rajasthan & Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 133

The Rajasthan High Court rejected a petition filed by an candidate for appointment to the post of PT Instructor, who had cleared the qualifying exam only in "re-evaluation", the result of which was declared after the original result of the written exam for the post was conducted.

Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand relied upon precedents to hold that the result of re-evaluation could not relate back to the date of original declaration of result, and hence, one cannot claim themselves to be eligible for the advertised post since they were declared successful in the qualifying exam only after the submission of the application form.

"There is no contradiction in views of the Hon'ble Apex Court, on the issue involved in these writ petitions and the only view that holds the field is that the re-evaluation result would not relate back to the date of original declaration of result. Hence, one cannot claim himself/ herself as eligible for the advertised post, as he or she had been declared as “pass” after the last for submission of their application form".

Internship Isn't Employment: Rajasthan HC Rejects Plea Fo r Bonus Marks For Internship During Covid-19 To Seek Appointment As Nursing Officer

Title: Pritika Gahlot & Ors. v the State of Rajasthan & Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 134

The Rajasthan High Court rejected a plea moved by various students pursuing diploma in General Nursing and Midwifery course, who had interned during Covid-19 pandemic period, and had thus sought bonus marks as provided to Covid Health Assistant (CHA) for appointment to the post of Nursing Officer.

Justice Arun Monga opined that internship being an integral part of the academic curriculum, without which the diploma could not be granted, could not be termed as an employment but rather a continuation of the student-hood. Hence, on this ground, the petitioners were not entitled to seek benefits of bonus marks claiming to be under employment.

'Shocking, Contemptuous': Rajasthan HC Flags Non-Compliance Of Decade-Old Order For Payment Of Leave Encashment, Says Leniency Shouldn't Be Taken Lightly

Title: Smt. Vidya Devi v State of Rajasthan & Ors., and other connected petitions

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 135

Rajasthan High Court has expressed surprise and shock over non-compliance of its order for over a decade by the State, and directed release of the petitioners' encashment of privileged leaves within a period of 3 months. The Court cautioned that non-compliance of the order shall be viewed seriously and followed by disciplinary actions against defaulting officers.

Opining the act of the State as contemptuous, the bench of Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand observed that the contempt of the Court's order was a serious legal infraction that struck at the sole of justice, eroding public confidence in the judicial system. It was held that a contemnor not only disrespected the specific order but directly questioned the court's ability to uphold rule of law.

“This Court is constrained to observe that the instant case is a classic and glaring textbook example of obstination exhibited by the State officials, who consider themselves to be above and beyond the reach of law. Non-compliance of the order dated 06.10.2015, even after a lapse of almost a decade is shocking and prima facie contemptuous.”

Income Tax Act | Rajasthan HC Dismisses Challenge Against Proceedings Initiated U/S 153C Based On WhatsApp Chats, Says Chats Had Been Corroborated

Title: Giriraj Pugalia v Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 136

Rajasthan High Court denied interference with initiation of proceedings under Section 153C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”) that were alleged to be initiated merely based on certain WhatsApp Chats, observing that the information in the chats were completely corroborated by specific transactions and hence, the said chat could be considered to be falling under the definition of “other documents” under Section 153C.

The division bench of Justice Pushpendra Singh Bhati and Justice Chandra Prakash Shrimali ruled that the ambit of Section 153C was not to restrict the proceedings in relation to 'other person' arising out of Section 153A but to enable such invocation such that in case there was any connecting evidence which was specific and corroborated by facts, no escape was possible for such 'other person'.

Rajasthan HC Modifies Order Asking State To Consider Amending S.273 CrPC On Appearance Of Accused, Notes Amendment Is Already In Place

Title: State of Rajasthan v Vikram Singh Indroi

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 137

The Rajasthan High Court has rectified an earlier order where it had asked the state government to consider amending CrPC to provide for appearance of accused through video conferencing to attend trials, after the State moved a plea stating that Section 273 CrPC had already been amended and has been duly notified.

For context, the court had in its March 7 order had permitted six men, having multiple FIRs registered against them for alleged financial crimes, to attend pending criminal trials through video conferencing noting that it may not be feasible for the accused to be physically present at multiple locations simultaneously. In doing so the court had observed therein that as per Section 273 CrPC there is no legal impediment if the accused is represented by his counsel.

28 Years On, Rajasthan High Court Asks Authority To Consider Compassionate Appointment Of Man Who Lost Father At Age Of Two

Title: Bharat Kumar v Rajasthan Rajya Vidhyut Prasaran Nigam Ltd. & Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 138

The Rajasthan High Court has asked the State Electricity Transmission Corporation to consider the plea for compassionate appointment of a man, who lost his serving father back in the year 1997. The man was only 2 years old at the time.

Ordinarily, compassionate appointment is an "immediate relief" to the family of a deceased government servant, mitigating the financial distress caused by the loss of the breadwinner. However, in this case, Court directed that the relief be considered despite lapse of 28 years, citing the ongoing financial distress of the Petitioner.

Justice Arun Monga highlighted Rule 10(3) of the Rajasthan Compassionate Appointment of Dependents of Deceased Government Servants Rules, 1996 (“Rules”) that permits the State to relax the time limit for such applications in exceptional cases where strict adherence shall cause financial hardship to the family.

Rajasthan HC Warns Private Institutes To 'Desist From Giving Irregular Admissions', Fines Three Dental Colleges ₹7.5 Lakh Per Student

Title: Pooja Punaram & Ors. v Rajasthan University of Heath Sciences & Ors., and other connected petitions

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 139

Adopting the principle of equity Rajasthan High Court regularized the admission of certain medical students admitted "irregularly" by three medical colleges in 2018-19 and 2019-2020, subject to the students paying fine of Rs. 1 Lakh.

At the same time Justice Dinesh Mehta imposed a cost of Rs. 7.50 Lakhs per student on Vyas Dental College, Eklavya Dental College and Maharaja Ganga Singh Dental College for giving irregular admissions, which is to be paid by July 31. Warning private colleges it said:

"It is high time when the Court should warn the private colleges to desist from giving irregular admissions. The order instant has been passed being guided by the equity in light of peculiar facts and considering that the contentious admissions were given 5-6 years back. However, in future if any such irregular admission is given by the colleges involved in the present writ petitions or by any other college, the DCI (Dental Council of India) and RUHS shall take stern action. They should not consider end of their duties by imposition of fine - they should withdraw or revoke the recognition granted to such colleges in accordance with law, obviously after following principles of natural justice".

Plant 21 Trees: Rajasthan High Court Imposes Condition On Workman Who Failed To Timely Adduce Evidence In Industrial Dispute

Title: Sitaram v Executive Engineer, Irrigation Division, Jodhpur & Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 140

Rajasthan High Court imposed the condition of planting 21 share trees on a workman for allowing his petition seeking another opportunity to adduce evidence in his industrial dispute. His claim was rejected by the Labour Court earlier when he failed to lead evidence on the stipulated date.

The bench of Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand said, “Planting trees as directed above, is one such initiative which this Court considers to be appropriate, as trees, for as long as they thrive whether for decades or centuries will continuously and silently offer numerous benefits to the city and the surrounding community. Future generations will benefit from a cleaner, fresh oxygen-rich environment.”

Transfer From CMO To Hospital's Deputy Controller A Reduction In Rank, Amounts To Deputation For Which Consent Is Needed: Rajasthan HC

Title: Dr. Shankar Lal Bamania v State of Rajasthan & Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 141

The Rajasthan High Court quashed an order where a government employee serving as Chief Medical and Health Officer (CM&HO) Udaipur was transferred as Deputy Controller of District Hospital, Pratapgarh observing that it amounted to deputation for which the employee's consent is mandatory which was missing herein.

In doing so the division bench of Chief Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava and Justice Munnuri Laxman set aside the single judge's order which had upheld the transfer order, observing that the single judge had been "misled" by respondent authorities who did not produce the relevant amended Rajasthan Medical and Health Service Rules, wherein Deputy Controller of Hospitals was no longer found in the cadre list.

It further observed that transfer order from the post of CM&HO to the post of Deputy Controller "clearly amounts to an adverse effect on the service conditions or career prospects of the appellant since such a transfer amounts to transfer from higher post to lower post".

Expect State To Issue Online Circular Stating Superannuation Age Of Dental, MBBS Medical Officers To Be 62 Years: Rajasthan High Court

Title: Dr. Renu Kala Mathur v State of Rajasthan & Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 142

The Rajasthan High Court has said that it expects the State to issue a circular/notification on their website stating that the age of superannuation of Medical Officers holding BDS (Bachelor of Dental Surgeon)/MBBS degree was 62 years, with immediate effect.

Justice Rekha Borana passed the order in a petition challenging the State's decision retiring the petitioner–a qualified BDS–at the age of 60 years, while relying on the division bench decision in Dr. Sarvesh Pradhan v State of Rajasthan. In doing so the court said that the judgment in Dr. Sarvesh Pradhan was a judgment in rem applying to all Medical Officers (Dental) despite which the State failed to comply with the same.

Retesting Prohibited Under NDPS Act Unless In Exceptional Circumstances, Request Must Be Made Within 15 Days Of FSL Report: Rajasthan HC

Title: Sadaram & Ors. v State of Rajasthan & Anr.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 143

Rajasthan High Court has reiterated that retesting or resampling in drugs cases is generally prohibited under NDPS Act, and it cannot be allowed in a routine manner. It could be ordered only in exceptional circumstances by the Trial Court after providing specific reasons and establishing reasonable grounds for such direction.

The bench of Justice Farjand Ali advised the DGP, Rajasthan to ensure that a written communication shall be issued in this regard within 60 days so that all the SHOs are aware of and adhere to the observations made in the case. Further, the Registrar General of the Court was also directed to circulate the order to all judicial officers handling trial of NDPS cases with directions of strict adherence.

Temporary Teachers Can Challenge Termination Under Non-Govt Educational Institutions Act, Removal Without Reasons Is Wrong: Rajasthan HC

Title: Managing Committee, D.A.V. Uchh Madhyamik Vidayalaya v Saurabh Upadhayaya, and other connected petitions

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 144

The Rajasthan High Court has held that appeal under Section 19 of the Rajasthan Non-Government Educational Institutions Act, 1989 is maintainable even in matters of termination of temporary employees since the mandate under Section 18 of the Act had to followed even in case of regular as well as temporary employees.

Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand held that the Act was a social legislation which was enacted to check the arbitrary action by management of the educational institutions.

"The whole purpose behind enactment of the Act of 1989 and Rules of 1993 and the provisions made therein i.e. Section 18 and Rule 39 is to check arbitrary action on the part of the unscrupulous management of the educational institutions. The Act of 1989 and the Rules of 1993 made thereunder are social legislation enacted to ameliorate and improve educational system. Intention of the Act and the Rules formed thereunder, is to check the various malpractices and mischiefs committed by the mighty management to exploit its employees whether appointed on regular or temporary basis. The language contained under Section 18 and Rule 39 is clear and specific and it requires no other interpretation. These provisions are available to all employees, whether he/she is appointed on regular or temporary basis. Hence, it is clear that appeal under Section 19 of the Act of 1989 is maintainable in similar matters of termination from service, of temporary employees".

Can't Cancel Appointments On Mere Allegation Of Discrepancies In Degrees Of Candidates: Rajasthan HC Forms Panel To Conduct Inquiry

Title: Yashwant v State of Rajasthan & Ors, and other connected petitions

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 145

The Rajasthan High Court formed a 3-member committee headed by the Secretary of the Rajasthan Staff Selection Board for conducting factual inquiry into the allegations against certain individuals regarding discrepancies in the degrees submitted by them at the time of appointment by the education department.

Justice Dinesh Mehta in his order formed the committee observing that until the committee submitted its report to State Of Rajasthan–Secondary Education, Directorate– no prejudicial action could be taken against the petitioners.

"Upon hearing learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the State and after considering the rival contentions, this Court is of the view that simply because of the discrepancies as noticed or alleged by the respondents Petitioners' appointments cannot be canceled. The petitioners may have genuine reasons or valid explanation for the discrepancies which the Directorate has pointed out. But, the factual inquiry as prayed by the petitioners cannot be done by this Court in exercise of its writ jurisdiction.With the consent of the parties, this Court deems it appropriate to constitute a three-Member Committee to examine the veracity of the allegations levelled against the petitioners vis-avis their defence and also to take into account any other additional/incidental issue that crops up," it said.

Delay Not Explained: Rajasthan HC Upholds Order Rejecting Plea T o Produce Sale Deed's Certified Copy Moved 13 Yrs After Suit Was Filed

Title: LRs of Avtar Singh & Ors. v LRs of Gajanand & Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 146

Justice Rekha Borana at the Rajasthan High Court upheld a trial court order rejecting the plaintiffs' plea to bring on record a sale deed 13 years after plaint was filed, stating that merely because the suit was at the stage of plaintiff's evidence, it gave the plaintiff no inherent right to produce a document which was in their knowledge from the time of filing the suit.

In doing so the high court further observed that the plaintiffs' did not explain "sufficient cause for such delay".

Party Can't Blame Lawyer For Its Own Negligence Without Citing Any Proof: Rajasthan HC Upholds Dismissal Of Suit For Non-Appearance

Title: Smt. Shakuntala & Anr. v Smt. Pallavi

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 147

While upholding rejection of an application filed under Order 9, Rule 9 CPC owing to the law of limitation, Rajasthan High Court held that a party could not be permitted to blame the lawyers for their negligence without there being any proof of the same.

Order 9, Rule 9 CPC lays down the right of a party, whose suit was dismissed for default in appearance, to apply for setting aside the dismissal.

Justice Rekha Borana was hearing a challenge to the order of the Trial Court wherein the appellant's application to set aside dismissal of their suit was rejected. This application was rejected by the Trial Court in light of the law of limitation.

Home Guards Rendering Long Non-Rotational Service Not 'Volunteers' Anymore, Disheartening To See Exploitation By State: Rajasthan HC

Title: Kuldeep Parasar v State of Rajasthan

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 148

Rajasthan High Court ruled that the home guards who were on non-rotational duty ever since their deployment without any break could not be considered as “volunteers” since the extraordinary longevity of their service had transformed their role from voluntary to de facto employment with the State.

The bench of Justice Arun Monga further opined that despite relying so heavily on their services, the State was exploiting them as a cost-effective labour without offering commensurate protections, remunerations, job security or post-retiral benefits. Such a treatment was not only unfair but also unsustainable.

“non-rotational Home Guards working on Group-C and D posts, have been trapped and masked under the false label of “volunteers.” In reality, they are workers exploited for years without proper recognition or rights. Some have served continuously for up to 20 years, a span that shatters any illusion of voluntary service, deemingly making them employees, not disposable volunteers.”

'Arbitrary': Rajasthan HC Orders Appointment Of Widow Who Was Denied Post Due To Pending Criminal Case Arising Out Of Matrimonial Issue

Title: Neeraj Kanwar v State of Rajasthan & Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 149

The Rajasthan High Court grants relief to a widow candidate who had successfully cleared the interview of the Rajasthan Administrative Services (RAS), but was denied appointment on the ground of pending criminal cases arising out of matrimonial discord.

Justice Arun Monga held that despite pending criminal proceedings being a condition for ineligibility prescribed in a circular, the administrative discretion had to operate in harmony with the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Avtar Singh v Union of India.

"As stated above, the FIR had emanated from the matrimonial discord between the petitioner and her husband (since deceased). The offences in the FIR do not involve moral turpitude. The role attributed to the petitioner is not of such a nature so as to impinge on the nature of duties to be performed by her upon appointment...Even otherwise, one ought to be mindful that the youth need a reformative approach to the indiscretions committed in heat of the moment, which may or may not be intentional. Societal and so should the legal perspective be, of course depending upon the nature of delinquency, that youthful indiscretions should not permanently tarnish an individual's future. A compassionate and reformative approach ought to be adopted when dealing with young individuals who may have committed minor transgressions. Young people are still in the process of emotional and intellectual development. A punitive approach that permanently brands young individuals as criminals for relatively minor mistakes contradicts the principles of justice/fairness, recidivism and reformation and reintegration into society," the court said.

Non-Appointment Of AAG After Consultation With High Court Not Contempt: Rajasthan HC Closes Suo Motu Criminal Proceedings Against State

Title: Suo Moto v the Chief Secretary, Government of Rajasthan & Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 150

Closing a suo motu criminal plea registered by a single judge on the non-issuance of order by State appointing Branmanand Sandu Advocate Cum Additional Advocate General despite the high court's consent, the Rajasthan High Court observed that it did not amount to contempt nor could it be considered a criminal matter.

A division bench of Chief Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava and Justice Anand Sharma in its order observed:

"Merely because the matter relates to appointment of a Government Advocate after consultation with the High Court, as required under Section 24 of the Cr.P.C. (as it then existed), it cannot be treated as a criminal matter. This is essentially a service issue. It is well settled that no PIL can be entertained in service matters. We are also of the view that non-issuance of any appointment order after consultation with the High Court, as provided under Section 24 of the Cr.P.C., does not amount to contempt".

Accounts Dept Has No Expertise To Sit Over Medical Board's View: Rajasthan HC Upholds Order Granting Disability Pension To Ex-Army Personnel

Title: Union of India & Ors. v No. 2648428 Ex-Hav and Hony Nb/sub Raghbir Singh

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 151

The Rajasthan High Court upheld Armed Forces Tribunal's order which granted benefit of 'disability element of disability pension' to a defence personnel, holding that Chief Controller of Defence Accounts (Pension) didn't have expertise to question correctness of personnel's assessment conducted by Re-survey Medical Board (RSMB).

The division bench of Chief Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava and Justice Anand Sharma was hearing the Union's petition challenging the Tribunal's order which had directed to grant benefit of disability element of disability pension to the respondent with effect from 1998, for life.

Marriage More Than A Ritual, Holds Unique Cultural Significance: Rajasthan HC While Quashing Rape FIR After Accused And Victim Marry

Title: J v State of Rajasthan & Anr.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 152

While quashing a rape case based on marriage between the complainant and the accused, Rajasthan High Court remarked that marriage is a sacred and divine institution, transcending earthly matters and holding unique significance in culture.

“Marriage is considered as sacred union between two individuals – transcending beyond physical, emotional and spiritual bonds. According to the ancient Hindu laws, marriage and its rituals are performed to pursue Dharma (duty), Artha (possessions), and Kama (physical desire). With such sanctity, marriage is more than a ritual, which cannot be allowed to be destroyed by continuing the criminal proceedings against the petitioner.”

The bench of Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand further clarified that the decision was given only based on the peculiarity of marriage between the complainant and the accused, and the same should not be seen as a precedent for quashing an offence of rape based on the fact that the victim and the accused reached a compromise.

Municipal Bodies Not Complying With Statutory Laws, State Must Evolve Mechanism To Monitor Their Functioning: Rajasthan High Court

Title: Mamta Choudhary v State of Rajasthan & Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 153

Rajasthan High Court expressed astonishment over the fact that out of 282 Municipal Councils/Boards, several were not following the mandatory requirement of conducting 6 meetings per year as required under Section 51 of the Rajasthan Municipalities Act, 2009 (“the Act”), without any action being taken against the defaulters by the State.

The bench of Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand issued a mandamus, directing the Chief Secretary and Principle Secretary, Department of Local Bodies, to constitute supervisory committee of Senior IAS officers at every division headquarters to monitor the functioning of all Municipal Council/Board falling under their jurisdiction.

26 Yrs On, Rajasthan HC Laments Plight Of Meritorious Visually Impaired Man Denied State Service Cadre For Not Fitting State's Check-Boxes

Title: Dr. Deva Ram v the State of Rajasthan & Ors.

Citation: 2025 Live Law (Raj) 154

After over 2 decades, Rajasthan High Court granted relief to a visually impaired candidate who, despite being meritorious in the Examination, was not appointed under Rajasthan Administrative Service (RAS) but under State Accounts Service.

This was because the State had not considered him disabled enough for reservation under disabled category and he was also not considered medically fit under the general category either.

“I wish I had been more disabled — then perhaps the system would have seen me,” said Justice Sameer Jain at the outset in his order observing that these words reflect not a wish for greater suffering, but a bitter irony that in the "rigid, checkbox-driven machinery of the State's welfare framework, a person's lived experience of disability may fall through the cracks".

The court noted, "That the petitioner had successfully qualified all stages of the Rajasthan Administrative Services Examination conducted in the year 1999 and was placed at 360th position in the overall merit list. Subsequently, in the RAS Examinations held in the years 2001 and 2003, the petitioner once again qualified all stages and secured a significantly improved 21st rank in the merit list. The petitioner, in both the Rajasthan Administrative Services (RAS) Examinations conducted in the years 1999 and 2003, had appeared under the 'general category' and not under any reserved category, despite being eligible for Other Backward Classes (OBC) reservation and having a known medical condition of low vision".

Rajasthan HC Imposes ₹1.5 Lakh Cost On 'Motivated' PIL Against State Electricity Distributor's Joint Venture With NTPC

Title: Ajay Chaturvedi v State of Rajasthan & Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 155

Rajasthan High Court imposed a cost of Rs. 1,50,000/- on a retired Chief Engineer of the Electricity Department while dismissing his PIL seeking quashing of joint venture between Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut Utpadan Nigam Ltd. and National Thermal Power Corporation Ltd. (“the JV”), opining it to be motivated by oblique motives, and a sheer abuse of process of law.

It was the case of the petitioner that based on his expertise in the field of electricity generation, the JV would lead to production and distribution of electricity at higher rates, going against public interest.

The division bench of Chief Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava and Justice Anand Sharma observed that the JV was entered into for undertaking many projects around the Chhabra Thermal Power Plant with an objective to establish additional power generation units, increasing their efficiency and reducing the cost of generation.

Rajasthan HC Grants Relief To Eligible Govt Lecturer Denied Selection Scale For Not Signing Application Form Despite Filling It Correctly

Title: Satyaveer Singh v the State of Rajasthan & Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 156

The Rajasthan High Court granted relief to a government lecturer who was denied grant of selection scale on the ground that he failed to affix his signatures on the application form that was submitted by him for the same.

Justice Vinit Kumar Mathur in his order said:

"Merely because, non-affixing his signatures on the application form cannot be a ground to deny benefit of grant of selection scale to the petitioner, if the details filled in the application form are correct and the petitioner is otherwise eligible for grant of selection scale".

Suspension Order & Charge Sheet Issued On Holiday Not Invalid, Govt Functions 24 Hrs A Day, 7 Days A Week: Rajasthan HC

Title: Indra Dudi v State of Rajasthan & Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 157

While rejecting a petition challenging a suspension order and charge sheet issued to the Pradhan of a Panchayati Samiti, Rajasthan High Court held that charge-sheet and the suspension order could not be considered as void or invalid on the mere ground that the two were issued on a holiday.

Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand in his order said that government servants were not barred from working on holidays to discharge their normal official duties. It was opined that the object of working on a holiday was to reduce the workload, and there was no prohibition in law for performance of any official work on a holiday.

Prolonged Suspension From Service Mirrors Penalty: Rajasthan HC Directs State To Ensure 'Reasonable Timeline' For Further Action, Lays Guidelines

Title: Naru Lal Meghwal v the State of Rajasthan & Anr., and other connected petitions

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 158

The Rajasthan High Court ruled that even though suspension is though legally not a penalty but an interim measure, however when dragged for a prolonged period mirrors punishment or “disguised” punishment.

In doing so the court issued a mandamus to the State of Rajasthan–through Secretary, Department of Personnel, to ensure that all "competent authorities vested with the power to suspend government servants adhere to a reasonable timeline for taking further action following a suspension order passed due to pending criminal proceedings".

After perusing existing statutory law, precedents as well as administrative circulars on suspension,Justice Arun Monga laid down guidelines to be borne in mind by the competent authority/review committee, before ordering suspension, as well as for its further continuation or revocation.

Rajasthan HC Sets Aside Abetment To Suicide Charge, Says No "Direct, Demonstrable Link" Between Actions Of Accused And Victim's Decision

Title: Kapil Ram v State of Rajasthan

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 159

The Rajasthan High Court overturned a trial court order which had charged the accused–a private cricket coach for abetment to suicide of fellow coach along with criminal defamation, wherein the deceased was allegedly harassed by the accused within a Whatsapp group.

The court observed that notably there was no suicide note discovered near the deceased and the allegation of harassment and torture by the accused was serious but did not sufficiently establish that crime under IPC Section 306 was committed. The court further said that prosecution is supposed to demonstrate a clear motive for the accused to abet the suicide, which was not the case herein.

Justice Manoj Kumar Garg opined that unlike the requirement of a direct and demonstrable link between the actions or omissions of the accused and the victim's decision to commit suicide, there was no evidence to prove the same. It was further opined threats or harassment, without evidence of direct participation in suicide, was not sufficient.

Abandoning Duty Without Prior Sanction Is Not 'Deemed Resignation', Must Be Dealt As Indiscipline Under Civil Services Rules: Rajasthan HC

Title: Anil Paliwal v State of Rajasthan & Ors, and other connected petitions

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 160

Rajasthan High Court partly allowed a plea challenging an order under Rule 86 of Rajasthan Voluntarily Rural Education Service Rules as per which a government college teacher was “deemed to have resigned”, stating that though show cause notice issued to him was correct, his act of not reporting back on duty could not be deemed as a resignation.

The court said that though Rule 86 was not applicable however as the petitioner remained absent without even applying for any leave or permission, in such cases indiscipline of the Government servant has to be appropriately dealt with in accordance with law under Rule 17 Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 (CCA Rules) for willful absence from duty.

Rajasthan HC Forms 5-Member Panel To Give Suggestions To Reform Administrative & Infrastructural Shortcomings In Govt Advocate's Office

Title: Kamal Singh v State

The Rajasthan High Court has constituted a 5-member committee of comprising of members of the bar to examine prevailing deficiencies, structural requirements and administrative needs of the office of the Government Advocate (GA), and to recommend measures for capacity enhancement, administrative reforms and infrastructural improvements.

Justice Farjand Ali took note of critical issues with the office of the GA like shortage of ministerial staff, lack of infrastructure, inadequate remuneration to State Law officers, and resulting procedural delays leading to hampered dispensation of justice, and ordered multiple reforms to be put in place for improving functioning of GA's office.

The Court was hearing a quashing petition in relation to FIR when it highlighted multiple administrative deficiencies that were plaguing the office of the GA. It was noted that despite presence of skilled law officers, absence of clerical and technical assistance was resulting in delays in disposing of FIRs like the present one.

Rajasthan High Court Monthly Digest: April 2025

Nupur Agrawal

Tags