[2026:RJ-JD:16142]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13366/2025 Ganpat Lal S/o Mohan Lal, Aged About 27 Years, Daro Ki Dhani, Village Jhakal, District Jalore.

----Petitioner Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Represented Through Principal Secretary, Secondary Education, Government Secretariat, Rajasthan, Jaipur - 302005.

2. Director, Secondary Education, Samta Nagar, Bikaner -

334001.

3. District Education Officer (Head Quarter), Secondary Education, Jalore, Rajasthan.

4. Rajasthan Staff Selection Board, Through Registrar, State Institute Of Agriculture Management Premises, Shree Ji Nagar, Prithviraj Colony, Durgapura Jaipur 302018 ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Mahendra Vishnoi For Respondent(s) : Mr. Manish Patel for respondent No.4 Mr. Bhupesh Charan for respondents No.1 to 3 on behalf of Mr. N.K. Mehta, Dy. GC HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND SHARMA

Order

08/04/2026

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

“It is, therefore, humbly prayed that in the interest of justice this writ petition may kindly be allowed and accepted and:

i. By an appropriate writ, order or direction, order dated 15.01.2025 (Annexure 1) be quashed and set aside.

ii. By an appropriate writ, order or direction, the State authority may be directed to continue the services of the petitioners.

iii. By an appropriate writ, order or direction the respondent board may be directed to not continue with the said inquiry.

iv. Any other order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deems fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case and in favour of the Petitioner may also be passed.

v. Cost of this writ petition may kindly be awarded in favour of the Petitioner.”

2. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that similar termination order dated 15.01.2025 was under challenge before the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.4298/2025 (Sharvan Choudhary Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.), where after appreciating the similar grounds as raised by the petitioner in this writ petition, the Co- ordinate Bench of this Court has allowed the writ petition vide order dated 08.05.2025 with following observations and directions:-

“12. In the present case, no charge-sheet/disciplinary enquiry has been initiated against the petitioner before terminating him from the services. The services of the petitioner has been terminated only on the basis of a show cause notice issued and dissatisfying from the reply filed by the petitioner. In the opinion of this Court, the procedure adopted by the respondents is not correct and without holding any enquiry, the respondents have reached to the conclusion that the appointment obtained by the petitioner is on the strength of forged documents. The matter was required to be proceeded with in accordance with the procedure prescribed under the Rules of 1958 by issuing a proper charge- sheet and holding a proper enquiry in the matter. Merely, getting the investigation done unilaterally by the respondents and finding the fact that certain documents have been fraudulently produced by the petitioner while getting the employment is not the correct approach adopted by the respondents for terminating the services of the petitioner.

13. It is further noted that in the identical circumstances, some of the candidates were issued show cause notices, against which, they preferred writ petitions and the coordinate bench of this Court vide order dated 03.4.2025 has passed an order to constitute the Committee to investigate the matter and at the same time, the services of petitioners of those writ petitions were protected by passing an interim order, whereas in the present case, the services of the petitioner has been terminated. Therefore, the petitioner stands discriminated vis-a-vis those candidates whose services have been continued during the pendency of the enquiry.

14. It is also a fact that except the infirmity shown in the show cause noti