Rajasthan High Court
/
Rajasthan High Court Monthly...

Rajasthan High Court Monthly Digest: March 2025

Nupur Agrawal

14 April 2025 10:10 AM IST

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.

Rajasthan High Court Monthly Digest: March 2025

Nupur Agrawal

Tags