1. The present criminal writ petition has been preferred on behalf of the convict-petitioner assailing the adverse decision taken in the meeting dated 30.12.2025 of the State Level Prison Open Air Camp Advisory Committee, Jaipur, whereby the petitioner’s application for being sent to Open Air Camp was rejected.

2. The record reveals that the petitioner stands convicted for the offences under Sections 302/149, 460/149 and 323/149 IPC and was sentenced to undergo life imprisonment vide judgment dated 23.05.2023 passed in Sessions Case No. 01/2021. The appeal preferred by the petitioner against the judgment of conviction being D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 104/2023 is pending consideration before this Court.

3. As per the custody certificate placed on record and not disputed by the respondents, the petitioner has undergone more than one-third of the substantive sentence including remission and his jail conduct has been reported to be satisfactory.

4. The petitioner applied for transfer to Open Air Camp under the provisions of the Rajasthan Prisoners Open Air Camp Rules, 1972. The said application was, however, rejected by the State Level Prison Open Air Camp Advisory Committee primarily on the ground that the petitioner stands convicted for an offence falling within the category mentioned under Rule 3(d) of the Rules of 1972.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the rejection is mechanical, suffers from non-application of mind and is contrary to the settled legal position that Rule 3 of the Rules of 1972 is not mandatory but directory in nature. It was submitted that the expression “ordinarily” occurring in Rule 3 obligates the Committee to examine the individual facts and circumstances of each case. Reliance has been placed upon the decision of this Court in Ajit Singh vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (D.B. Criminal Writ Petition No. 52/2022 decided on 11.03.2022), as also upon other judgments rendered by Coordinate Benches of this Court, wherein adverse recommendations denying transfer to Open Air Camp solely on the basis of the nature of conviction were set aside and the competent authorities were directed to reconsider or grant the benefit of transfer in accordance with the Rajasthan Prisoners Open Air Camp Rules, 1972.

6. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the State supported the impugned decision and submitted that the petitioner has been convicted for a serious offence and therefore the Committee has rightly rejected his application.

7. This Court has given its thoughtful consideration to the rival submissions and perused the material available on record.

8. Before adverting to the facts of the present case, it would be apposite to refer to the relevant statutory provision. Rule 3 of the Rajasthan Prisoners Open Air Camp Rules, 1972 provides that certain classes of prisoners shall “ordinarily” not be eligible for admission to Open Air Camps.

9. A conjoint reading of Rule 3 with the scheme of the Rules of 1972 makes it abundantly clear that the embargo created under Rule 3 is not absolute. The use of the word “ordinarily” is of significance and cannot be rendered otiose. The Rule does not impose a blanket prohibition but vests a discretion in the competent authority to consider cases falling within the enumerated categories on their own merits keeping in view the object of the Rules.

10. The object of the Rajasthan Prisoners Open Air Camp Rules, 1972 is reformative in nature. The purpose is to encourage good conduct, self-discipline and gradual reintegration of convicts into society. Transfer to an Open Air Camp is not a matter of right, but at the same time it cannot be denied by applying a straight-jacket formula solely on the basis of the nature of conviction.

11. The Division Bench of this Court in the case of Ajit Singh (supra) has categorically held that mere conviction for an offence mentioned in Rule 3 cannot be the sole criterion for rejection and that the competent authority is required to consider