CW / 8162 / 2020 (HARJEET SINGH VS ORIENTAL BANK OF COMMERCE) Date of Order/Judgment: 24/11/2025 The petitioner sought compassionate appointment, asserting that rejection on the ground of non-indigence ignored liabilities, medical expenses & absence of livelihood. HELD-that a narrow interpretation of “indigent” renders compassionate appointment an illusory promise and that terminal benefits are not perennial income. Holding the rejection arbitrary and unsustainable, the impugned orders were set aside, the matter was remanded for fresh consideration, and the writ petition was allowed.
2
CW / 4005 / 2006 (PRADHUMAN SINGH VS STATE AND ORS.) Date of Order/Judgment: 21/11/2025 Petitioner seeks quashing of the penalty of withholding two increments, alleging illegal inquiry and violation of natural justice. HELD-the inquiry was lawful, evidence showed negligence, punishment was proportionate, and writ review cannot reassess findings absent perversity or procedural illegality; no interference was warranted and the petition was dismissed. The Court noted that criminal and departmental standards differ and Article 226 permits limited supervisory review.
3
CW / 10154 / 2019 (NAKUL PATIDAR VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 19/11/2025 The petitioners sought consideration for transfer to TSP areas under the applicable circular. Held- recruitment under TSP reservation gave rise to a legitimate expectation of posting in tribal/mineral area. State cannot extend an attractive promise at recruitment & later departs from it without any rational justification. To balance equities & ensure the petitioners are not left remediless. Writ Peti. Disposed of with directions to the respondents for shifting/ adjustment in TSP area.
4
CRLA / 478 / 2013 (HANUMAN AND ORS. VS STATE) Date of Order/Judgment: 14/11/2025 Appellants seek setting aside of their conviction u/Sec 306 IPC, asserting absence of instigation or requisite mens rea. HELD-that for abetment of suicide, prosecution must establish a proximate act of instigation or intentional aid as contemplated u/Sec 107 IPC. Mere demand of money or financial dispute, without conduct compelling the deceased to perceive suicide is insufficient. As essential ingredients were not proved, the conviction & sentence were set aside, appellants were acquitted.
5
CW / 13775 / 2024 (NOPARAM VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 13/11/2025 Peti. seeks quashing of the order disqualifying him from the post of Chairman, contending that alleged ineligibility u/ Sec 28(10) of the Rajasthan Cooperative Societies Act, 2001 could not be examined u/Sec 28(13). HELD—that the alleged disqualification was a pre-election issue and not a case of a member having become disqualified after election. The Registrar lacked jurisdiction under Section 28(13), such disputes lie under Section 58. The impugned order was therefore set aside.
6
CW / 3898 / 2020 (PARAS VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 10/10/2025 Petitioner seeks recognition of his earlier joining and corresponding increment and pay fixation, asserting the delay was caused solely by the employer. HELD-that an employee cannot suffer for an administrative lapse, that the principle against a party benefiting from its own wrong applies, and that unequal treatment with similarly placed candidates violates Articles 14 and 16. Petitioner was therefore entitled to full benefits and the writ was allowed.
1
CRLMP / 4839 / 2019 (NAGENDRA CHOUDHARY S/O SHRI DEVENDRA SNGH CHOUDHARY VS UNION OF INDIA) Date of Order/Judgment: 26/11/2025 The petitioner sought quashing of criminal proceedings u/Sec 276C (1)(i) of the Income Tax Act, contending that the penalty for alleged concealment, forming the sole basis of prosecution, had been set aside by the ITAT. HELD- that where the Tribunal, as final fact-finding authority, has negated concealment on merits, prosecution on identical facts cannot survive. The presumption under Section 278E cannot operate without foundational facts. The proceedings were accordingly quashed.
2
CRLMP / 5786 / 2025 (ASHISH DAVE SON OF SHRI MOHAN CHANDRA NAGAR, VS THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 26/11/2025 The petitioner sought quashing of FIR, contending that the allegations did not disclose any cognizable offence. HELD- that the FIR, read as a whole, contains specific allegations which prima facie disclose cognizable offences warranting investigation. While exercising jurisdiction under Section 528 BNSS, the Court cannot conduct a mini-trial or examine the correctness of allegations. Finding no abuse of process or mala fides, the Court declined interference and disposed of the petition.
3
ARBAP / 64 / 2024 (SOHAN BAI W/O LATE SHRI KRISHAN KUMAR NAGAR VS UNION OF INDIA) Date of Order/Judgment: 07/11/2025 Applicant seeks appointment of an independent arbitrator under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 due to inaction of the respondents. HELD-that on filing of a Section 11(6) application, the respondent forfeits its contractual right to appoint an arbitrator. Any subsequent appointment is void and without jurisdiction, warranting court intervention, and accordingly an independent arbitrator was appointed by the Court. The application was accordingly allowed.
4
CW / 12831 / 2025 (JAGDISH PRASAD SHARMA S/O SH. RAMLAL VS JAIPUR DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY) Date of Order/Judgment: 04/11/2025 Petitioner seeks quashing of the JDA notice under Sections 32 and 34A of the JDA Act, the sealing of his marriage garden, and the Tribunal’s affirming order. HELD-that orders of the JDA Tribunal lie only under Article 227, making a writ under Article 226 not maintainable. It further found that Section 17 of the JDA Act mandates prior development permission, which was absent, the sealing was lawful, and the petition was dismissed. JMC license cannot override required JDA permissions.
5
CRLMP / 3958 / 2025 (SWAPAN KUMAR S/O LATE SHRI BIJAN KUMAR RAI, VS THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 04/11/2025 Petitioner seeks quashing of the prosecution sanction under Section 528 BNSS, alleging it was mechanically issued without application of mind or evaluation of material required by Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. HELD-that sanction defects matter only if they cause failure of justice. Validity was tested at trial, no prejudice was shown, trial had advanced, and any pre-trial interference would defeat the statute’s object, so the petition was dismissed.
