Sanjay Kumar Maida vs State Of Rajasthan (2025:Rj-Jd:49840)
2025 Latest Caselaw 15617 Raj

Citation : 2025 Latest Caselaw 15617 Raj
Judgement Date : 18 November, 2025

Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Sanjay Kumar Maida vs State Of Rajasthan (2025:Rj-Jd:49840) on 18 November, 2025

Author: Farjand Ali

Bench: Farjand Ali

     HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
                      JODHPUR
                 S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11305/2021
Sanjay Kumar Maida S/o Shri Sujit Maida, Aged About 32 Years,
R/o Ward No. 11 Bujabara, Talwara, Banswara (Raj.).
                                                                        ----Petitioner
                                        Versus
1.     State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, Department
       Of Rural Development And Panchayati Raj, Government
       Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.
2.     The Secretary, Department Of Education, Government Of
       Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.
3.     Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Banswara.
                                                                     ----Respondents


For Petitioner(s)             :     Mr. Hemant Singh
For Respondent(s)             :     Mr. Kuldeep Vaishnav
                                    Mr. Nilesh Charan



                 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI

Order

18/11/2025

1. The present writ petition has been preferred for the following

prayer:-

"i) by an appropriate writ, order or direction the impugned Order dated 13.08.2021 (Ann.12) may kindly be quashed and set aside the petitioner may be reinstated in service with all consequential benefits;

and

ii) Any other order or direction, which this Hon'ble Court deemed just and proper be passed in favour of the petitioner;

iii) Costs of this petition may kindly be allowed to the petitioner;"

(Uploaded on 20/11/2025 at 01:28:57 PM)

[2025:RJ-JD:49840] (2 of 3) [CW-11332/2021]

2. Learned counsel for the parties are in agreement that the

controversy involved in the present cases is squarely covered by

an order dated 17.02.2021 rendered by a Coordinate Bench of this

Court in a S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.12088/2020 : Bhagwati

Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. The relevant portion of the said

judgment is reproduced hereinbelow:-

"14. Heard.

15. In considered opinion of this Court, a candidate whose documents have been scrutinized and has been offered appointment as per the claim made by him/her, can neither be ousted by way of cursory inquiry nor can his/her appointment be annulled, unless the documents, which were produced are/were forged or spurious.

16. A duly selected candidate, more particularly, when he/she after successful completion of probation period, has been confirmed on the post concerned, cannot be scooped out in the manner, as has been done in the case in hands.

17. The purported enquiry conducted by the respondents is a farce. The notice that has been issued to the petitioner required her to produce the proof that she had completed BSTC prior to 4.9.2013. Naturally, the petitioner did not have any such proof.

18. Things could have been different, if such enquiry was conducted in case of a candidate, who had filed writ petition and his case was allowed by the High Court in light of Trilok Ram's judgment and appointment was given as a consequence of the order.

19. As noticed above, the petitioner's candidature was accepted and appointment was given much before Division Bench allowed the writ petition of Trilok Ram vide judgment dated 18.8.2017. The respondents on the basis of the ratio laid down by Hon'ble the Supreme Court, cannot terminate the services of the persons like petitioner because the petitioner was offered appointment and allowed to join

(Uploaded on 20/11/2025 at 01:28:57 PM)

[2025:RJ-JD:49840] (3 of 3) [CW-11332/2021]

much prior the date of judgment rendered by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Trilok Ram.

20. In view of the above, the present writ petition is allowed. Impugned orders dated 9.10.2020 (Annex.20) and 10.10.2020 (Annex.21) are hereby quashed and set aside.

21. As the orders impugned have been quashed and set aside, it will be obligatory upon the respondents to allow the petitioner to join the duties.

22. The respondents shall however be free to take up appropriate proceedings against the petitioner in accordance with law. Needless to observe that while doing the same, the principles of natural justice and relevant rules will be strictly adhered to.