[2026:RJ-JP:6493-DB]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 27889/2018 Kamal Kumar S/o Shri Mohan Lal, Aged About 42 Years, Resident Of 23/47, Swarn Path, Mansarovar, Jaipur.

----Petitioner Versus

1. Rajasthan High Court, Through Its Registrar General , Jodhpur (Raj.)

2. Neelmani D/o Shri Pukhraj Tank, Aged About 40 Years, Posted As Judicial Assistant At Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur.

----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sandeep Saxena For Respondent(s) : Mr. Tanveer Ahamad HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE INDERJEET SINGH HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI CHIRANIA

Order

11/02/2026

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

“It is, therefore, prayed that the Hon'ble Court may call for the entire record concerning the case and after examining the same, by issuing writ, order or direction or in the nature thereof;

i). And the action on the part of the respondent. as well as order dated 17.02.2017 so far as it relates to the petitioner may kindly be quashed and set aside and the respondent may directed to promote the petitioner on the post of Judicial Assistant against the vacancies of 2013-14 from the date his juniors were promoted with all consequential benefits and accordingly revised the seniority in the cadre of Stamp Reporter and Court Fee Examiner the arrears may be paid to the petitioners along with

18% interest.

ii). Any prejudicial order to the interest of the petitioners, if passed during the pendency of the writ petition, the same may kindly be taken on record and be pleased to quash and set aside.

iii)Any other appropriate writ, order or direction, which this Hon'ble Court may consider just and proper, in the facts and circumstances of the case, may kindly be passed in favour of the petitioners. iv). Cost of this writ petition may also be awarded in favour of humble petitioners.”

2. Brief facts of the case are that while the petitioner was working on the post of Junior Judicial Assistant, he was served with a charge-sheet under Rule 17 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as “the CCA Rules, 1958”). After completion of the enquiry, he was awarded the penalty of censure. Thereafter, when the promotion exercise was conducted by the respondents in the year 2013–2014, the petitioner was denied promotion on the ground of the said penalty. Subsequently, the respondents again conducted the promotional exercise, and the petitioner was granted promotion to the post of Judicial Assistant for the year 2015–2016 instead of 2014–2015 vide order dated 17.02.2017. Hence, the present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the action of the respondents in not granting him promotion for the years 2013–2014 and 2014–2015.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that only the penalty of censure was imposed upon the petitioner. He further submits that at best, the respondents could have deferred the promotional benefit for one year; however, they deferred the petitioner’s promotion for two years, i.e., 2013–2014 and 2014–

2015, which is unjustified.

petition.

record.

6. Admittedly, the penalty of censure was imposed upon the petitioner while he was working on the post of Junior Judicial Assistant. Thereafter, the respondents did not consider him for promotion for the year 2013–2014, which appears to be legally justified. However, while considering promotions for the year 2014–2015, the respondents committed an error in not promoting the petitioner and instead granted him promotion for the year 2015–2016 without any justifiable reason, vide order dated

17.02.2017.

7. From the record, it is evident that only one penalty of censure was operative against the petitioner at the time the promotion exercise was conducted. Therefore, denial of promotion to the petitioner for the year 2014–2015 is arbitrary and unjustified. The action of the respondents in not granting promotion for the said year deserves to