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) 4763

HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN (JODHPUR BENCH)
NUPUR BHATI
KAILASH KUMAR – Appellant
Versus
THE DIRECTOR AND JOINT SECRETARY – Respondent
CW / 11452 / 2025



[2026:RJ-JD:8348]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11452/2025 Kailash Kumar S/o Shri Chautha Ram, Aged About 25 Years, R/o Village Bhootel, Post Deora, Tehsil Chitalwana, District Jalole, Rajasthan.

----Petitioner Versus

1. The Director And Joint Secretary, Directorate Of Treasuries And Accounts, Government Of Rajasthan, Vitta Bhawan, E-Block, Jyoti Nagar, Janpath, Jaipur.

2. The Treasury Officer, Office Of The Treasury, District Treasury, Jalore - 343001, Rajasthan.

3. The Secretary, Rajasthan Staff Selection Board (Rssb), State Institute Of Agriculture Management Premises, Durgapura, Jaipur - 302018, Rajasthan.

----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Surendra Thanvi For Respondent(s) : Ms. Navya Sharma for Mr. Mahaveer Bishnoi, AAG HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE NUPUR BHATI

Order

13/02/2026

1. The instant writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India with the following prayers:-

“1. The Respondent No. 2 is directed to permit the petitioner to join his place of posting at Jalore forthwith in terms of the appointment order dated 11.01.2025 (Annexure-7)

2. The order dated 14 January 2025 issued by Respondent No. 2 (Annexure-8), and any other communications or orders by which the petitioner's joining has been withheld may kindly be declared illegal and same may kindly be quashed and set aside. 3. The respondents' decision to withhold the petitioner's appointment on the sole ground of pendency of a criminal proceeding, may kindly be declared being arbitrary, discriminatory and without jurisdiction;

4. The Respondent department may kindly be directed to allow the petitioner to join his duties as per order dated 11.01.2025 forthwith.”

2. The brief facts giving rise to the present petition are that pursuant to an advertisement dated 20.06.2023 issued by the Rajasthan Staff Selection Board for recruitment to the post of Junior Accountant, the petitioner applied, appeared in the examination held on 11.02.2024, and was declared successful, having secured 596.0681 marks. His name was included in the list of selected candidates published on 27.06.2024 and thereafter he was called for document verification vide order dated 26.09.2024. The petitioner appeared for verification on 22.10.2024 and disclosed a pending criminal case arising out of FIR No. 550 dated 15.11.2019 registered at Police Station Basni, Jodhpur City. After due verification of all documents, including the said disclosure, his candidature was confirmed and his name appeared in the final selection list dated 17.12.2024.Subsequently, vide appointment order dated 11.01.2025, the petitioner was appointed as Junior Accountant and allotted posting at Jalore, with a direction to join within fifteen days. However, when the petitioner reported for joining within the stipulated period, he was not permitted to join without assigning any reason. Despite repeated representations and issuance of a legal notice, the respondents have withheld his joining, though similarly situated candidates against whom criminal cases were pending have been permitted to join. Aggrieved by such action/inaction of the respondents, the petitioner has preferred the present writ petition.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the action of the respondents in withholding the petitioner’s joining despite issuance of a valid appointment order dated 11.01.2025 is unsustainable in the eyes of law. He submits that after completion of the entire selection process, including document verification and disclosure of the pending criminal case, the petitioner was appointed and directed to join within fifteen days. He further submits that once the competent authority issued the appointment order, the petitioner acquired a legitimate right to join, which could not have been frustrated without any reasoned order or statutory authority. He also submits that respondent No.2, being merely the joining authority, had no jurisdiction to revisit, suspend or withhol

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