Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Manish Bhargava vs The State Of Rajasthan ... on 6 November, 2025
Author: Farjand Ali
Bench: Farjand Ali
[2025:RJ-JD:47756]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8742/2025
Manish Bhargava S/o Shri Gangadhar Bhargava, Aged About 38
Years, Resident Of Ward No. 22, Om Colony, Churu, Presently
Posted As Senior Teacher, Mahatma Gandhi Govt. School (English
Medium), Ghanghu, District Churu (Raj.).
----Petitioner
Versus
1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Principal Secretary,
School Education And Panchayati Raj (Elementary
Education) Department, Govt. Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. The Secretary, Department Of Secondary Education,
Govt. Secretariat, Jaipur.
3. The Joint Secreetary, Education (Group-2Nd) Department,
Jaipur.
4. The Director, Secondary Education, Bikaner.
5. The Joint Director, School Education, Zone Churu, Churu.
6. The Chief District Education Officer, Churu.
7. The Chief Block Education Officer, Churu.
8. The Principal, Mahatma Gandhi Govt. School (English
Medium), Ghanghu, District Churu (Raj.).
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Yashpal Khilery
For Respondent(s) : Mr. NK Mehta, Dy.G.A. with
Mr. Bhupesh Charan
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI
Order
06/11/2025
1. This petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking quashing
of denial of promotion to the petitioner on the post of Lecturer
(School Education) against the vacant post of Lecturer (History
(Uploaded on 10/11/2025 at 02:08:16 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:47756] (2 of 5) [CW-8742/2025]
Subject) for the year 2022-23 and afford the petitioner promotion
on the next promotional post.
2. It is inter alia indicated in the writ petition that the petitioner
was visited with penalty of censure by order dated 04.12.2019
(Annex.2). The respondents initiated the proceedings for
promotion to the post of Lecturer (School Education) for the year
2022-23. The Department started collecting the material for the
said purpose and required details of employees, who were
penalized with the punishment in the past seven years vide order
dated 13.12.2024 (Annex.6), wherein, name of the petitioner has
been reflected on account of penalty of censure.
3. The petition essentially has been filed as is reflected from para
10 of the writ petition that as the petitioner has been visited with
penalty of censure, his case has been rejected by the DPC &
declared him ineligible for Promotion vide order dated 13.12.2024
(Annex.6).
4. Submissions have been made that only on account of penalty of
censure the consideration of petitioner's candidature by the DPC
cannot be rejected and his candidature has to be considered by
the DPC.
5. A response has been submitted by the State inter alia indicating
that the petitioner was not considered for promotion in the DPC
for the year 2022-23 because the petitioner has been punished
with the penalty of censure in the last seven years, as the same is
a natural consequence and effect of penalty and it has been
prayed that petition be dismissed.
(Uploaded on 10/11/2025 at 02:08:16 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:47756] (3 of 5) [CW-8742/2025]
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner made submissions that action
of the DPC in not considering the case of the petitioner for
promotion only on account of penalty of censure is not justified
inasmuch as the criteria for promotion is seniority-cum-merit, in
which case even if an incumbent has been visited with penalty the
same cannot be the criteria for denying the promotion and,
therefore, the petition deserves to be allowed.
7. Reliance has been placed on the judgment in State of Rajasthan
& Ors. vs. Ashok Singhvi : 2013 (4) WLN 251.
8. Learned counsel for the respondents contested the submissions
based on the response, as noticed hereinbefore.
9. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for
the parties and have perused the material available on record.
10. Though the petition was filed, as noticed in para 10 of the
petition, however, from the response of the respondents it appears
that the DPC has met, however, it has not even considered the
case of the petitioner for promotion only on account of the fact
that petitioner was visited with penalty of censure.
11. The issue raised in the petition is no more res integra as
Division Bench in the case of Ashok Singhvi (supra) while
upholding the judgment of learned Single Judge inter alia
observed as under:
"12. A glance at the impugned order passed by the learned
Single Judge clearly and unequivocally reveals that the
learned Single Judge has simply confined the relief to the
respondent vis-a-vis his right of consideration for promotion
and question of his suitability for promotion has been left open
to be decided by the competent authority. Learned Single
Judge has further observed that if the penalty suffered by the
(Uploaded on 10/11/2025 at 02:08:16 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:47756] (4 of 5) [CW-8742/2025]
incumbent adversely effects minimum merit necessary for
efficiency of administration, the DPC can adjudge him
unsuitable for promotion.
Learned writ Court has further concluded that debarring an
incumbent from his right of consideration for promotion on the
strength of Circular dated 26th of July 2006 is not sustainable
and that being so issued directions to consider the candidature
of the respondent ignoring the said Circular. On examining the
impugned order in the light of Rule 24A of the Rules of 1963
and on the touchstone of the Constitution Bench judgment of
the Apex Court in Guman Singh's case (supra), and the latest
verdict of the Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Sarva U.P. Gramin
Bank's case (supra), we do not feel persuaded to interfere
with the impugned order. The legal precedents which are cited
by the learned Addl. Advocate General, are having no bearing
whatsoever on the issue involved in the matter, and therefore,
these judgments are of no help to the appellants. We,
therefore, fully concur with the impugned order passed by the
learned Single Judge and find no merit in this appeal.
Resultantly, this intra-court appeal is hereby dismissed. Costs
are made easy."
12. The Division Bench clearly opined that the DPC irrespective of
the penalty imposed can adjudge the suitability of the incumbent
for promotion and that the consideration itself cannot be denied.
13. Consequently, in view of the law laid down in the case of
Ashok Singhvi (Supra), the writ petition filed by the petitioner is
allowed. The order impugned dated 13.12.2024 (Annex.6) is
quashed and set aside. The respondents are directed to consider
the case of the petitioner for promotion for the year 2022-23. In
case the DPC has been held and promotions accorded, a review
DPC shall be held and the case of the petitioner shall be
considered by the DPC
in light of the judgment in the case of Ashok Singhvi (supra).
(Uploaded on 10/11/2025 at 02:08:16 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:47756] (5 of 5) [CW-8742/2025]
14. Needful may be done by the respondents within a period of six
weeks.
(FARJAND ALI),J
137-Samvedana/-
(Uploaded on 10/11/2025 at 02:08:16 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
