Rajasthan High Court Monthly Digest: February 2025

NOMINAL INDEX [Citations: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 44 To 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 80]

Manju Sharma v State of Rajasthan & Ors. 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 44

X v State of Rajasthan 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 45

Nathu Lal v State of Rajasthan & Ors. 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 46

Ram Chander v the State of Rajasthan 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 47

Rakesh Sen v Smt. Ajab Bano 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 48

Au Small Finance Bank Ltd v Atmaram Bishnoi and Others And Batch 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 49

Jugal Kishore & Ors. v State of Rajasthan and other connected petition 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 50

Mohammad Aslam v State of Rajasthan & Ors. 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 51

Hari Singh & Anr. v State of Rajasthan, and other connected petition 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 52

Anita Devi v State of Rajasthan & Ors. 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 53

Rajesh Sharma v State of Rajasthan & Ors. and other connected petitions 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 54

Sunil Samdaria v/s State Of Rajasthan and another 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 55

Sushila Devi Jatav versus State of Rajasthan 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 56

Sattar Khan v Zila Parishad & Anr. 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 57

Sardar Mal Yadav v State Elementary Education and Ors. 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 58

Pukhraj Purohit & Ors. v State of Rajasthan & Ors. 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 59

LRs of Late Sanwarmal Sharma v Smt. Deeta Devi & Ors. 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 60

Anandi Lal & Anr. v Shri Dalip Prajapat & Ors. 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 61

Sunil Dattatrey v the State of Rajasthan & Ors. 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 62

Bharti Sharma v State of Rajasthan & Anr. 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 63

State of Rajasthan v X 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 64

Girdhari Karmachandani v Punjab National Bank & Ors. 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 65

Suman Bishnoi v State of Rajasthan & Ors. 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 66

Suresh Kumar v Union of India & Ors. 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 67

Rakesh Mandola & Anr. v State of Rajasthan 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 68

Champa Lal Ojha v State of Rajasthan & Anr. 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 69

Ram Niwas v State of Rajasthan & Ors. 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 70

Dheeraj Singh Parmar v State of Rajasthan 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 71

Ramesh Bairwa v State of Rajasthan & Other connected application 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 72

Abhishek Agrawal v Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited & Anr. 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 73

Shakur Shah and another vs. Iliyas and others 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 74

Surendra Bisnoi v State of Rajasthan & Ors, and other connected petitions 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 75

State of Rajasthan & Anr. v Sunita, and other connected appeals 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 76

Warekar Dnyanraj Ganesh & Ors. v the Chairman NEET PG Admission/ Counselling Board 2024 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 77

R. Magadaiah v I.G. CRPF & Anr. 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 78

Moola Ram v State of Rajasthan & Ors, and other connected petitions 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 79

Private Physiotherapy, Nursing & Para Medical Institutions Society v Rajasthan University of Health Sciences 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 80

 X v The State of Rajasthan & Ors

Kaushalya Devi v Central Administrative Tribunal

Orders/Judgments of the Month

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.

Other Developments

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.