| 1 | CRLMB / 8766 / 2024 (NIRMA VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 26/07/2024 Petitioner charged u/s 419, 420, 120-B of IPC & u/s 3,4,5,6 of Rajasthan Public Examination (Prevention of Unfair Means in Recruitment) Act, 2022 filed application u/s 439 CrPC for releasing her on bail. Held: Petitioner is not involved in any other case & has available to her substantial grounds so as to question the prosecution case. No useful purpose would be served by keeping petitioner in detention for indefinite period. Bail application allowed. |
| 2 | CRLA / 492 / 1989 (JEET SINGH AND ORS. VS STATE) Date of Order/Judgment: 25/07/2024 Criminal appeal u/s 374 Crpc has been filed with prayer of setting aside conviction u/s 302/34 & 447 of IPC passed by sessions judge? HELD: two different stories with different accused's name were narrated in both DD. If inconsistencies are found in DD, then DD recorded before the magistrate is to be relied upon. Contradictions found in the statements of sole eye witness. There are relaible & cogent evidence on record that conviction deserves to be reversed. Appeal allowed. |
| 3 | CRLMB / 8666 / 2024 (VEER BAHADUR SINGH VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 25/07/2024 Applicant locked in FIR u/s 302, 201 & 120-B of IPC filed application u/s 439 CrPC (sec. 483 of BNSS, 2023) for restoration of liberty. Held: Murder committed to take revenge from complainant. Pet. was root cause of incident. In serious offence, filling of chargesheet does not provide a ground for bail to the petitioner. The nature of gravity of accusation, role attributed to petitioner & case set up against him, not found entitled to be released on bail. Bail application dismissed. |
| 4 | CRLMB / 8653 / 2024 (DINESH KUMAR VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 24/07/2024 Anticipatory bail application filed by petitioner apprehending arrest in connection with FIR registered u/s 363, 376(2)(I)(N), 450 of IPC & u/s 3/4 of POCSO Act. Held: Victim has specifically alleged offence of rape against the petitioner. If victim refused to undergo medical exam, her statement cannot be negated & it cannot be said that petitioner has been falsely implicated. Allegations levelled against the petitioner are of grave nature. Bail application rejected. |
| 5 | SAW / 438 / 2024 (ABHISHEK AGRAWAL VS BHARAT PETROLEUM CORPORATION LIMITED (BPCL)) Date of Order/Judgment: 16/07/2024 Petition filed aggrieved by order passed in S.B. Civil Writ Petition concerning invalidity of the lease deed as registered after the cut-off date as per guidelines. Held: Manual for selection of LPG Distributors, ownership is defined to have ownership title over property or lease deed (with min. 15 years validity) registered on or before last date of submission of application. It is beyond the jurisdiction of writ court to issue direction to BPCL not to adhere to guidelines. Appeal dismissed |
| 6 | CW / 7697 / 2014 (SULENDER KUMAR VS STATE AND ANR.) Date of Order/Judgment: 28/05/2024 Petitioner seeks direction to the respondents to consider his candidature for the post of Senior Teacher Gr.II (Science) in blind/low vision (LV) category. Held: An unsuccessful candidate cannot challenges the rules of the game after having participated in the same. No reservation meant for LV category as per the advertisement for the Teacher Grade-II (Science). All candidates belonging to the LV have been across broad treated similarly as the petitioner herein. Petition dismissed. |
| 7 | CW / 5738 / 2024 (RAM PRATAP BISHNOI VS RAJASTHAN PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION) Date of Order/Judgment: 23/05/2024 Petition filed by petitioners having common grievance that in respect of some questions in exam, the answers opted by the expert examiners qua the same were wrong as per the answer key uploaded on website. Held: Same answer key applied to all candidates. Expert committee took corrective measures (deletion of some questions) on objections raised. Only after having remained unsuccessful petitioners belatedly challenged the answer key. No interference is warranted. Petition dismissed. |
| 8 | CW / 1662 / 2006 (STATE AND ORS. VS RAJU LAL HARIJAN AND ANR.) Date of Order/Judgment: 22/05/2024 Petition is filed aggrieved by award of Labour Court directing reinstatement of workman without back wages. Held: No compliance of s. 25F of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947when services of respondent was terminated. Respondent has worked at Govt. Hosp. wef 19.06.1991 to 05.07.1992 attracting the applicability of s. 25B. The respondent worked for more than 240 days in a calendar year & was entitled to get protection u/s 25F. Retrenchment of the services is not justified. Petition dismissed. |
| 9 | CW / 11178 / 2016 (MAQSOOD KHAN KHOKHAR VS STATE AND ORS) Date of Order/Judgment: 21/05/2024 Petitioner aggrieved by an order by which respondent has rejected the experience certificate of petitioner on the ground that the same is not as per requirement pursuant to advertisement. Held: A contempt petition filed by petitioner was dismissed vide an order (06.07.2016) & held that petitioner was not holding the requisite experience. The order has not been challenged by petitioner & thus it has attained finality. Hence no ground to interfere. Petition dismissed. |
| 10 | CW / 8961 / 2010 (DR. VISHAL KUMAR SHARMA AND ANR. VS STATE OF RAJ. AND ORS.) Date of Order/Judgment: 15/05/2024 Petitioners seeking quashing of entire selection process held for post of Associate Professor & seek to hold a fresh selection process. Held: No irregularity either in facts or in law. Petition filed in 2020, since then selected candidate have been working uninterruptedly in service, equity at this stage is heavily loaded in their favour. The Rules of the game cannot be impugned once the match has begun & after participation in the same, on being unsuccessful. Petition dismissed. |
| 11 | CW / 13470 / 2023 (VIRENDER SINGH VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 27/02/2024 ISSUE: Whether the representation of the petitioner is liable to be rejected by respondent? HELD: Court directed the respondent to consider the candidature of the petitioner and award him bonus marks as per his entitlement. Resultantly, subject to his being otherwise found meritorious, he be accorded the benefit of the vacant post, which was directed to be not filled up vide an interim order dated 16.01.2024 passed by this Court. Petition allowed. |
| 12 | CW / 12462 / 2023 (DR. ASHOK VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 26/02/2024 ISSUE: Whether Petitioners, are entitled to extension of 30 days in joining period on their selection as Medical Officers? HELD: It is the resp. who permitted the posts to be vacant while pet. were discharging their duty of SR by granting the extension, yet the very purpose of the extension was frustrated by denying the pets. 30 days of extension. But petioners shall not claim any benefits on the principle of ‘No Work No Pay’ for the period of out of service. Petition allowed |
| 13 | CW / 5092 / 2023 (MANISHA ALI VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 23/02/2024 ISSUE: Whether the petitioner be allowed to submit the P.G. Diploma certificate in Computer Application after the last date? HELD: Similarly situated other candidate has been given the benefit but petitioner was denied. It is directed that petitioner also be accorded the benefit of her PG Diploma of year 2012. And, she shall be appointed only, if there is vacancy available. She shall not be accorded monetary benefits but entitled to notional benefits. Petition allowed. |
| 14 | CW / 1830 / 2024 (SANGEETA CHOUDHARY VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 23/02/2024 ISSUE: Whether the appln. form be rejected solely due to an inadvertent error made by the pet. in labelling it as a ‘conference paper’ instead of a ‘research paper’? HELD: it was an inadvertent error on part of the pet. she should not be subjected to such severe consequences as to be denied the recognition of a research endeavour. At most, the mistake made by her can be regarded as an insignificant irregularity rather than being labelled as legal irregularity. Petition allowed. |
| 15 | CW / 2042 / 2024 (DEEPIKA KUMARI VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 23/02/2024 ISSUE: whether candidate is entitled to the benefit of notification dated 30.12.2010 which recognizes her caste as OBC and whether she can be denied the caste benefit because the updated certificate was submitted by her at a later date? HELD: The authenticity of OBC certificate is not disputed. A petitioner’s caste is included in OBC hence resp is directed to consider the petitioner's OBC Certificate and grant her benefits of her performance based on merit. Petition allowed |
| 16 | CW / 16090 / 2017 (VAHIDUDDIN VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND ORS.) Date of Order/Judgment: 08/02/2024 Issue: Can the pension and all the associated benefits from suspension to retirement be withheld after enquiry report favoured the petitioner. Held: Pension should not have been withheld without any plausible justification. The withholding of increments is deemed a punitive action under Rule 14 of the 1951 without holding the requisite departmental enquiry. Petitioner is entitled to receive the increment from the date of suspension until retirement date with 9% annum interest. Petition allowed. |
| 17 | CW / 2744 / 2018 (MAHENDRA KUMAR BANGRWA VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND ORS.) Date of Order/Judgment: 17/01/2024 ISSUE: Whether the partition of land between two brothers in 1984 be regarded as collectively or distinct for the purpose of grant of appointment as outlined in MOU? HELD: Respondents No. 4&5, are directed to consider the case of the petitioner for grant of appointment in terms of the MOU. It was only after due verification that the proportionate compensation, according to area of the acquired land, was awarded to two separate owners/khatedars as per the revenue records.Petition allowed |
| 18 | CW / 13484 / 2017 (M/S. KUCHAMAN PETROL SERVICE VS HINDUSTAN PETROLEUM CORPORATION LTDAND ORS) Date of Order/Judgment: 01/12/2023 ISSUE: Whether pet. assailing order of resp.1 by which agreement subsequent proceedings between them was set aside? HELD: It is apparent that the dispute stems from the T&C of contract and the alleged violations thereof by both parties. Seeking enforcement of contractual rights through writ jurisdiction is not the appropriate recourse. The pet. ought to have pursued relief in the appropriate civil court to seek specific performance of its contractual rights. Petition dismissed. |
| 1 | CW / 12314 / 2008 (M/S SANT INTERNATION JEWELLERS VS STATE OF RAJ AND ORS) Date of Order/Judgment: 01/08/2024 Petition filed seeking quashing of order rejecting the application of petitioner for allotment of plot in Special Economic Zone. Held: Reserve price wrongly fixed, all applications rejected with a decision to re-advertise. Not a case of discrimination or irrationality. Petitioner would be at liberty to participate when allotment for plots is advertised. The right of the highest bidder is always provisional & the authorities are not bound to accept the highest bidder. Petition dismissed. |
| 2 | CW / 11363 / 2024 (MANJU GARG W/O SHRI VISHNU GARG VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 31/07/2024 Petition filed against the impugned order suspending the petitioner, & a chargesheet issued to her u/r 16 of Raj. Civil Services (Classification, Control & appeal) Rules, 1958. Held: Chargesheet cannot be interfered with in a routine manner. Petition dismissed. A general mandamus issued to the authorities to look into the matter & take immediate steps to resolve the situation of proxy teaching in govt. schools. Direction issued to authorities for framing a Zero Tolerance Policy. |
| 3 | CW / 6215 / 2018 (DAMODAR LAL GUPTA VS STATE OF RAJ AND ORS) Date of Order/Judgment: 23/07/2024 Petition filed seeking quashing of orders issued by Mining Engineer/ Assistant Mining Engineer for recovering amount payable against Short Term Permit. Held: No order of demand existed after the decision by the revisional authority. After the remand, no order was passed but the notices for recovery were issued. It is a trite law that recovery notices are to be preceded with an order creating demand. Impugned orders set aside. Petition allowed. |
| 4 | CW / 11861 / 2024 (PAYAL SONI D/O SH. CHITRANJAN SONI VS RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT) Date of Order/Judgment: 23/07/2024 Issue: Whether defaults committed in filling OMR sheets a valid ground for exclusion of candidate from the process of selection? Held: Violation of instructions disrupt the process of selection. No laid down system in selection process to allow candidate to remove such mistakes. Instructions are mandatory & to be strictly complied. Mistakes committed by the candidate cannot be allowed to be corrected & the only course open is exclusion from the process of selection. Petition dismissed. |
| 5 | CW / 12729 / 2020 (PRACHIN CHOUDHARY SON OF SHRI BHUPENDRA SINGH CHOUDHARY VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 23/07/2024 Petition filed aggrieved by the order of dismissal of appeal as time barred. Held: Petitioner made a statement that he as mentally upset & not aware of the proceedings, but no evidence was produced. Delay cannot be condoned in absence of sufficient cause. Inordinate delay of more than 3 years with no acceptable explanation. Court adopts stricter approach where delay is inordinate. Petition dismissed. |
| 6 | SAW / 342 / 2024 (GULZARI LAL S/O LATE SHRI BANWARI LAL VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 19/07/2024 Issue: Whether the respondents were justified in rejection application of petition seeking re-employment as per Rule 14 of Urban Co-operative Banks, Employees Service Rules, 2006? Held: Absolute discretion to the authority whether or not to re-employ. Consideration- nature of exigencies of service, experience, need of institution, work load, & other factors. Detailed consideration made by respondents hence, not arbitrary decision. No vested right to seek re-employment. Appeal dismissed. |
| 7 | SAW / 986 / 2022 (MAHENDRA KUMAR JAT SON OF SHRI KALYAN MAL VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 10/07/2024 Issue: what is the scope of judicial review in case of challenge to the correctness of the answer key in competitive exam? Held: Scope is limited to exceptional cases where the court finds that model answer keys are demonstrably wrong on the face of it. Court should not re-evaluate the answer sheets as it has no expertise in the matter & academic matters are best left to academics. Based on these principles, it is a case of doubt & benefit should go to exam authority. Appeal dismissed. |
| 8 | CW / 9660 / 2024 (M/S MO INDUSTRIES VS UNION OF INDIA) Date of Order/Judgment: 08/07/2024 Issue: Whether the petitioner is entitled to refund of accumulated input tax credit? Held: Circular no. 135/15/2020-GST held to be in conflict with sec. 54(3)(ii) of CGST Act by division bench of this court. The claim of refund of ITC was prior to date of issuance of Circular. The circular cannot be applied to oust the legitimate claim of accumulated ITC refund. Impugned order is set aside. Matter is remitted back to appellate authority to decide the appeal afresh as per law. Petition allowed. |
| 9 | CW / 6008 / 2022 (MUKESH KUMAR SHARMA SON OF SHRI JAI PRAKASH SHARMA VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 01/07/2024 Issue: Whether the exercise of power given under Rule 19(ii) of Rules, 1958 to dispense with the inquiry proceedings resulting into suspension of petitioner illegal, arbitrary & unconstitutional? Held: Allegations against petitioner can be proved after holding inquiry. It is not a case where it is unreasonable to follow procedure as per rules. The material & reasons to dispense with regular inquiry not disclosed. Gross violation of principles of natural justice. Petition allowed. |
| 10 | CRLMP / 2097 / 2024 (RAMESHWAR S/O BALCHAND VS STATE OF RAJAJSTHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 01/07/2024 Petitions filed seeking quashing of orders passed by the collector u/s 6A of Raj. Bovine Animal Act, 1995. Held: The proceeding u/s 6A is independent & distinct from the criminal proceedings. Competent authority to initiate & conclude proceedings cautiously taking into account criminal proceedings & can pass order of disposal or release as per law. HC cannot interfere as collector acts like a quasi-judicial authority u/s 6A & not like criminal court. Petition disposed of. |
| 11 | CSA / 143 / 2009 (NAVRATAN AGRAWAL VS RAGHUNATH) Date of Order/Judgment: 20/05/2024 Second appeal preferred aggrieved by order passed in 1st appeal wherein decree for eviction in favour of appellant was set aside. Held: Suit property originally belonged to registered public trust and transferred to appellant after following procedure laid u/s 31 of Raj. Public Trust Act. Evidence proved that deceased Gulji was a tenant on suit premises which was inherited by his LRs. Without establishing independent right, Resp. has no authority to challenge title and ownership. |
| 12 | CW / 1525 / 2008 (STATE OF RAJ AND ANR VS BOARD OF REVENUE AND ANR) Date of Order/Judgment: 21/02/2024 ISSUE: Whether the resp. no. 3 has violated the license conditions no. 6.9.3? HELD: The communication sent by the DEO to the Excise Commissioner was not substantiating that resp. No.2 had transported or supplied the liquor in Sriganganagar. No link was established between Kalu Sindhi and resp. No.2. Liquor was recovered at the back of resp. No.2.Hence, penalty should not be imposed unless the party had acted deliberately in defiance of law or was guilty dishonest conduct. Petition dismissed |
| 13 | ITA / 90 / 2020 (PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VS M/S HARI NARAIN PARWAL) Date of Order/Judgment: 21/02/2024 ISSUE: Whether the appeal is maintainable in HC from the order rejecting rectification of applications? HELD: U/s 260-A of The Income Tax Act, 1961 on substantial questions of law, appeal from every order passed in appeal by Tribunal shall lie to the High Court. In the present case, the appeal filed is against the dismissal of the rectification order and not against the order passed in appeals consequently, the appeal is not maintainable. Appeal dismissed. |
Rajasthan High Court Principal Seat Jodhpur
e-Services Helpline: 9414056204
hc-rj[at]nic[dot]in
0291-2888500-04
Rajasthan High Court Bench Jaipur
e-Services Helpline: 7023103127
hcjaipur-rj[at]nic[dot]in
0141-2227124
