Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Ritu Naval vs State Of Rajasthan (2025:Rj-Jd:51334) on 26 November, 2025
Author: Rekha Borana
Bench: Rekha Borana
[2025:RJ-JD:51334]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1338/2021
Ritu Naval D/o Janwar Lal, Aged About 30 Years, 184, Parihar
Nagar, Bhadwasiya, Jodhpur, District Jodhpur, Rajasthan.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, Department
Of Home, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur,
Rajasthan.
2. The Director General Of Police, Jaipur, District Jaipur,
Rajasthan.
3. The Inspector General Of Police, Jaipur, District Jaipur,
Rajasthan.
4. The Superintendent Of Police, Barmer, District Barmer,
Rajasthan.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Ms. Abha Dadhich for Mr. Kailash
Jangid
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Shailendra Kumar for Mr. Ritu Raj
Singh Bhati
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REKHA BORANA
Order
26/11/2025
1. The present petition was listed before this Court yesterday
and in view of judgment cited by counsel for the petitioner in
Bheiru Dan Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors., S.B. Civil Writ
Petition No.12216/2022 (decided on 25.08.2022), the Court
proceeded on to partly allow the writ petition. However, while
dictating the complete order in chamber, the Court was of the view
that the petition could not even be partly allowed and hence the
(Uploaded on 27/11/2025 at 05:39:47 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:51334] (2 of 4) [CW-1338/2021]
matter was directed to be listed in "To be Mentioned" category
today.
2. Today, counsel for the petitioner was posed with a query as
to how the petition would be covered by the ratio in the earlier
judgments of this Court in Arun Choudhary & Ors. Vs. State of
Rajasthan & Ors. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.5255/2013,
(decided on 11.08.2014 at Jaipur Bench) and Nirmala Kumari
Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors., S.B. Civil Writ Petition
No.14864/2021 (decided on 25.10.2021) upon in Bheiru Dan
(supra).
3. Counsel for the petitioner could not satisfy this Court on the
said issue.
4. The facts are that the petitioner, after been selected for the
post of Police Constable, was afforded appointment with a
probation period of two years. The petitioner, though joined, did
not attend the training sessions despite several notices been
served on her. Subsequently, she submitted in writing that she
does not want to continue with the training session. In the said
event, she was called upon to deposit the training expenses
amount as well as the salary amount as paid to her, in terms of
the Bond as submitted by her while joining the services.
5. In pursuance of the above, the petitioner deposited an
amount of Rs.1,33,789/- and after deposition of the same, she
was issued a 'No Objection Certificate' by the respondent-
Department. Admittedly, the amount was deposited by the
petitioner on 20.06.2013 and the present petition has been filed in
(Uploaded on 27/11/2025 at 05:39:47 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:51334] (3 of 4) [CW-1338/2021]
the year 2021 with a prayer to direct for refund of the said
amount.
6. The present petition has been filed after a period of
almost ten years on the count that in one identical petition, being
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.7823/2015; Jagdish Vs. State &
Ors. (decided on 11.04.2016), it was directed that the amount
recovered from the incumbent qua training expenses be refunded
to him.
7. After hearing learned counsels and perusing the judgments
as relied upon by counsel for the petitioner, this Court is of the
clear opinion that the present petition could not be covered by the
ratio laid down in the said judgments.
8. In all the earlier judgments including Jagdish (supra), the
incumbents were those employees who having been selected as
Police Constables and after having undertaken the training, were
selected for some other Government job. In that event, the Court
held that a person moving from one Government job to another
Government job, that too with the State of Rajasthan only, would
not be liable for paying the training expenses as the said training
would definitely benefit them in the next job.
9. Herein, it is not the case of petitioner that she declined to
continue with the training session because of having been selected
in some other Government job. She specifically, of her own wish,
gave in writing that she did not intend to continue with the
training. In that event, the petitioner was definitely bound to
comply with the condition of Bond as submitted by her while
joining the services. As per the condition of the Bond, a candidate
(Uploaded on 27/11/2025 at 05:39:47 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:51334] (4 of 4) [CW-1338/2021]
who does not continue with the services for the complete
probation period, would be liable to pay the training expenses as
well as the complete amount paid qua emoluments during the
training period.
10. In view of the above specific condition of the Bond as
submitted by the petitioner, she cannot be held entitled to claim
refund of the amount as deposited by her and that too, by way of
a writ petition filed after almost ten years.
11. No case for interference thus is made out. The writ petition is
hence, dismissed.
12. Stay petition and applications, if any, stand disposed of.
(REKHA BORANA),J
149-Sanjay/-
(Uploaded on 27/11/2025 at 05:39:47 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
