[Cites 1, Cited by 0]
Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Ramesh Chandra Ad vs State Of Rajasthan (2026:Rj-Jd:7943) on 12 February, 2026
Author: Nupur Bhati
Bench: Nupur Bhati
[2026:RJ-JD:7943]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1427/2026
Ramesh Chandra Ad S/o Kantilal Ad, Aged About 41 Years,
Resident Of Sukheda, Pali Kalan, Tehsil Sajjangarh, District
Banswara, (Raj.).
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Principal Secretary,
School Education And Panchayati Raj (Elementary
Education) Department, Rajasthan, Jaipur.
2. Director, Elementary Education, Bikaner.
3. Zila Parishad Banswara, Through Its Chief Executive
Officer, Banswara.
4. District Education Officer, (Headquarter), Elementary,
Banswara.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Saransh Vij
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Samarjeet Singh Bhati for
Mr. Kamlesh Sharma, AGC
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE NUPUR BHATI
Order
12/02/2026
1. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner with the
following reliefs:
"1. The Impugned Order dated 13.01.2025 (Annex.7) passed
by the District Education Officer may kindly be quashed and set
aside.
2. The respondents may kindly be directed to permit the
petitioner to join the services with all consequential benefits
and also provide the benefits arises by the order dated
03.02.2025.
3. Cost of litigation and damages may also be allowed in
favour of the petitioner.
4. Any other appropriate writ or order Οr direction which is
favorable to the petitioner in the facts and circumstances of
the case may kindly be granted to the petitioner."
2. Brief facts of the case are that the present writ petition has
been preferred by the petitioner against the order dated
13.01.2025 (Annex.7) issued by respondent No.4, whereby the
(Uploaded on 12/02/2026 at 07:51:52 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:7943] (2 of 4) [CW-1427/2026]
respondent authority terminated the services of the petitioner
during probation, stating that his services are no longer required
in public and departmental interest.
2.1. The petitioner was appointed on the post of Teacher Grade
III (Level II) at Government Upper Primary School, Pandwal
Uankar, District Banswara, by order dated 11.01.2024 (Annex.1).
During the period of probation, FIR No.182 dated 26.06.2024
came to be registered against the petitioner at Police Station
Kushalgarh, District Banswara, alleging that he had cleared the
REET Examination 2022 - Teacher & Upper Primary School
(General/Special Education) (Level II, Class 6 to 8) Direct
Recruitment 2022 - by placing a dummy candidate in his place.
2.2. On account of registration of the said FIR, the petitioner was
taken into custody and, during investigation, the department
issued order dated 04.07.2024, whereby he was placed under
suspension under Rule 13 of the Rajasthan Civil Services
(Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958 (CCA Rules 1958).
2.3. The order dated 05.08.2024 (Annex.4), treating the matter
as a fit case to proceed under Rule 19(ii) of the CCA Rules 1958
on the premise that the petitioner was involved in forgery and had
secured selection on the basis of a dummy candidate, culminated
in dismissal from service on the strength of the district
establishment committee's resolution. The said order dated
05.08.2024 (Annex.4) was challenged by the petitioner before this
Court by way of Writ Petition No.661/2025. During the hearing of
that petition, learned counsel for the State apprised the Court that
the termination order dated 05.08.2024 (Annex.4) had been
revoked vide order dated 14.01.2025 (Annex.6), whereupon the
(Uploaded on 12/02/2026 at 07:51:52 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:7943] (3 of 4) [CW-1427/2026]
writ petition was dismissed as having become infructuous vide
order dated 16.01.2025 (Annex.5), while observing that the
petitioner shall be entitled to all consequential benefits arising
from the revocation of the order dated 05.08.2024.
2.4. Thereafter, upon obtaining a copy of the order dated
16.01.2025, the petitioner approached the respondent authority
for compliance of the Court's directions regarding consequential
benefits; however, instead of granting such benefits, the
respondents handed over another order dated 13.01.2025
(Annex.7), whereby the petitioner's services were again
terminated during probation by a non-speaking three-line order,
merely stating that her services are no longer required in public
and departmental welfare. Hence, this petition.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner
was appointed on the post of Teacher Grade III (Level II) vide
order dated 11.01.2024, however, on account of an FIR lodged
against her alleging that he cleared the REET Examination-2022
by impersonation, her services were dismissed vide order dated
05.08.2024, and again terminated vide order dated 13.01.2025.
He submits that the earlier dismissal order dated 05.08.2024 was
revoked by a subsequent order dated 14.01.2025 (Annex.6), yet
just a day prior thereto, the respondents had already passed the
order dated 13.01.2025 (Annex.7) terminating his services, which
clearly indicates that the latter order was passed without due
application of mind. Counsel further submits that the termination
order dated 13.01.2025 (Annex.7) was issued by the District
Education Officer, who is not the competent authority to pass such
(Uploaded on 12/02/2026 at 07:51:52 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:7943] (4 of 4) [CW-1427/2026]
an order, the competent authority being the District Establishment
Committee.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the present
case is squarely covered by the order dated 10.07.2025 passed in
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6057/2025 (Mahesh Chandra
Patel Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.) by a Coordinate Bench of
this Court.
5. Learned counsel for the respondents is not in a position to
dispute that the present case is squarely covered by the aforesaid
order in Mahesh Chandra Patel (supra).
6. Thus, taking into consideration the submissions made by
learned counsel for the parties and the order dated 10.07.2025
passed in the case of Mahesh Chandra Patel (supra), the writ
petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 13.01.2025
(Annex.7) is quashed and set aside. However, the respondents are
at liberty to take appropriate action against the petitioner, in
accordance with law.
7. The needful shall be done by the authorities concerned
within a period of four weeks from today, and it is made clear that
if the petitioner is found innocent and an order of reinstatement is
passed in her favour, she shall be entitled to all consequential
reliefs.
8. The stay petition as well as all other pending miscellaneous
applications, if any, stand disposed of accordingly.
(DR.NUPUR BHATI),J
3-/Devesh/-
(Uploaded on 12/02/2026 at 07:51:52 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
