SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Online)(Raj) 3537

HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN (JODHPUR BENCH)
NUPUR BHATI
RAMESH CHANDRA AD – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF RAJASTHAN – Respondent
CW / 1427 / 2026



[2026:RJ-JD:7943]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1427/2026 Ramesh Chandra Ad S/o Kantilal Ad, Aged About 41 Years, Resident Of Sukheda, Pali Kalan, Tehsil Sajjangarh, District Banswara, (Raj.).

----Petitioner Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Principal Secretary, School Education And Panchayati Raj (Elementary Education) Department, Rajasthan, Jaipur.

2. Director, Elementary Education, Bikaner.

3. Zila Parishad Banswara, Through Its Chief Executive Officer, Banswara.

4. District Education Officer, (Headquarter), Elementary, Banswara.

----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Saransh Vij For Respondent(s) : Mr. Samarjeet Singh Bhati for Mr. Kamlesh Sharma, AGC HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE NUPUR BHATI

Order

12/02/2026

1. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner with the following reliefs:

“1. The Impugned Order dated 13.01.2025 (Annex.7) passed by the District Education Officer may kindly be quashed and set aside.

2. The respondents may kindly be directed to permit the petitioner to join the services with all consequential benefits and also provide the benefits arises by the order dated

03.02.2025.

3. Cost of litigation and damages may also be allowed in favour of the petitioner.

4. Any other appropriate writ or order Οr direction which is favorable to the petitioner in the facts and circumstances of the case may kindly be granted to the petitioner.”

2. Brief facts of the case are that the present writ petition has been preferred by the petitioner against the order dated 13.01.2025 (Annex.7) issued by respondent No.4, whereby the respondent authority terminated the services of the petitioner during probation, stating that his services are no longer required in public and departmental interest.

2.1. The petitioner was appointed on the post of Teacher Grade III (Level II) at Government Upper Primary School, Pandwal Uankar, District Banswara, by order dated 11.01.2024 (Annex.1). During the period of probation, FIR No.182 dated 26.06.2024 came to be registered against the petitioner at Police Station Kushalgarh, District Banswara, alleging that he had cleared the REET Examination 2022 – Teacher & Upper Primary School (General/Special Education) (Level II, Class 6 to 8) Direct Recruitment 2022 – by placing a dummy candidate in his place.

2.2. On account of registration of the said FIR, the petitioner was taken into custody and, during investigation, the department issued order dated 04.07.2024, whereby he was placed under suspension under Rule 13 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958 (CCA Rules 1958). 2.3. The order dated 05.08.2024 (Annex.4), treating the matter as a fit case to proceed under Rule 19(ii) of the CCA Rules 1958 on the premise that the petitioner was involved in forgery and had secured selection on the basis of a dummy candidate, culminated in dismissal from service on the strength of the district establishment committee’s resolution. The said order dated 05.08.2024 (Annex.4) was challenged by the petitioner before this Court by way of Writ Petition No.661/2025. During the hearing of that petition, learned counsel for the State apprised the Court that the termination order dated 05.08.2024 (Annex.4) had been revoked vide order dated 14.01.2025 (Annex.6), whereupon the writ petition was dismissed as having become infructuous vide order dated 16.01.2025 (Annex.5), while observing that the petitioner shall be entitled to all consequential benefits arising from the revocation of the order dated 05.08.2024.

2.4. Thereafter, upon obtaining a copy of the order dated 16.01.2025, the petitioner approached the respondent authority for compliance of the Court’s directions regarding consequential benefits; however, instead of granting such benefits, the respondents handed over another order dated 13.01.2025 (Annex.7), whereby the petitioner’s services were again terminated during probation by a non-speaking three-line order, merely stating that her

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top