Bank Can Adjust OTS Deposit on Borrower Default, No Cheating u/s 420 IPC: Delhi High Court
02 Mar 2026
Divij Kumar Quits CMS INDUSLAW for Independent Practice
03 Mar 2026
Global Lawyers Debate AI Liability in Autonomous Vehicles
03 Mar 2026
CCPA Fines Startup ₹8 Lakh for False Child Growth Claims
05 Mar 2026
Madras High Court Scoffs at Police Custody Injury Claim
05 Mar 2026
India's Criminal Investigations Face Systemic Conviction Crisis
05 Mar 2026
Kerala HC Slams TDB Financial Discipline in Ayyappa Conclave, Orders Auditor Report on Past Anomalies: High Court of Kerala
06 Mar 2026
ST Members Can Invoke Section 13B HMA If Hinduised By Customs: Chhattisgarh High Court
06 Mar 2026
Lease Cancellation Valid Even by 'In-Charge' Mining Officer Under OMMC Rules: Orissa High Court
06 Mar 2026
Back
Next 
SURYA KANT, K. V. VISWANATHAN
Mahesh Chand Bareth – Appellant
Versus
State Of Rajasthan – Respondent
Headnote: Read headnote
JUDGMENT :
K.V. Viswanathan, J.
1. Leave granted in SLP (Civil) No. 34742 of 2013 and SLP (Civil) No. 34663 of 2013.
2. This batch of 47 appeals involves common questions of law. They arise from the judgments of the Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jaipur Bench, Jaipur. The main appeal, namely, Civil Appeal 7906 of 2010 (Mahesh Chand Bareth & Anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.) (hereinafter referred to as ‘Mahesh Chand Bareth’) arises out of a judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jaipur Bench, Jaipur in D.B. Civil Special Appeal No. 402 of 2009 dated 21.05.2010. The other matters arise out of the same batch as Mahesh Chand Bareth or out of the judgments relying on Mahesh Chand Bareth or based on the judgments which, in turn, relied on Mahesh Chand Bareth. By virtue of the said judgments, the appellants were denied relief. The appellants challenged the selection of candidates to the post of “Prabodhak” (teacher) by virtue of advertisement issued on 31.05.2008. Recruitment and other service conditions for the post of
The main legal point established in the judgment is that age relaxation and the award of bonus marks to project-employed applicants were found to be valid and non-discriminatory under the Rajasthan P....
The central legal point established in the judgment is the validity of the State of Rajasthan's policy to restrict the benefit of bonus marks to employees who have worked under different organization....
The State Government has the discretion to extend weightage to a particular class serving in the State of Rajasthan only, and such discretion cannot be deemed discriminatory or arbitrary.
The court ruled that granting bonus marks based on residence violates the principles of equality under Articles 14, 15, and 16 of the Constitution.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that age relaxation for candidates and the calculation of weightage for employment exchange seniority should be in accordance with the Recruitment ....
Entitlement to bonus marks under the Rajasthan Medical and Health Subordinate Service Rules, 1965 and the interpretation of the same in light of relevant case law.
The main legal point established is that the petitioner was entitled to age relaxation and bonus marks as per the Rules of 1965 and the Circular/letter dated 08.02.2016, despite the rejection of his ....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
Listen Article