[Cites 0, Cited by 0]
Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Arjun Dan vs Naveen Mahajan (2026:Rj-Jd:9393) on 19 February, 2026
Author: Rekha Borana
Bench: Rekha Borana
[2026:RJ-JD:9393]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Writ Contempt No. 977/2018
Arjun Dan S/o Shri Birddan, Aged about 39 years, R/o VPO
Jamba, Tehsil Baap, District Jodhpur, Rajasthan.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. Shri Pawan Kumar Goyal, Secretary, Department of Rural &
Panchayati Raj, Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur, Rajasthan.
2. Shri Shubham Chaudhary, Secretary, Department of
Education, Jaipur, Rajasthan.
3. Shri Kana Ram, Director, Secondary Education, Bikaner,
District Bikaner, Rajasthan.
4. Shri Kana Ram, Director, Department of Elementary
Education, Bikaner, Rajasthan.
5. Shri Abhishek Surana, Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad
Jodhpur, District Jodhpur, Rajasthan.
6. Shri Rameshwar Prasad Joshi, District Education Officer,
Secondary Education, District Jodhpur, Rajasthan.
7. Shri Dharmendra Kumar, District Education Officer,
Elementary Education, District Jodhpur, Rajasthan.
8. Shri Allaha Din Tak, Block Elementary Education Officer,
Panchayat Samiti Baap, District Jodhpur, Rajasthan.
9. Shri Budh Ram Siyag, Additional Block Elementary Education
Officer, Panchayat Samiti Baap, District Jodhpur, Rajasthan
10. Shri Natvar Lal Nagar, Principal/ PEEO/Chairman, School
Development Management Committee, Government Senior
Secondary School, Charnai, Block Baap, District Jodhpur,
Rajasthan.
11. The State of Rajasthan through The Secretary, Department
Of Panchayati Raj And Rural Development, Secretariat,
Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Mohan Singh Shekhawat for
Mr. Kailash Jangid
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Ayush Gehlot for Mr. Rajesh
Panwar, AAG
Mr. Kuldeep Singh Solanki for Mr. I.R.
Choudhary, AAG
(Uploaded on 21/02/2026 at 02:32:49 PM)
(Downloaded on 23/02/2026 at 08:49:03 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:9393] (2 of 4) [WCP-977/2018]
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REKHA BORANA
Order
19/02/2026
1. The present contempt petition has been filed alleging
disobedience of order dated 05.02.2018 passed in S.B. Civil Writ
Petition No.860/2018 whereby the Court passed the following
directions:
"4. Admittedly, it is a position where there
are two sets of documents and it is required to be
found out as to which document is correct and
was actually issued by the SDMC.
5. In light of the aforesaid position, we
direct the respondent No.5 to make appropriate
enquiry and find out in what circumstances, two
separate documents of same proceedings with
different result have came into being within a
period of 60 days. In case after enquiry, the
respondent No.5 finds the name of Jasraj was not
there in the original recommendation of the SDMC
then the appointment of the petitioner be
considered in accordance with law as per his
merit. In case required, the petitioner shall be at
liberty to approach this Court again."
2. Vide order dated 04.02.2026, the respondents were directed
to place the inquiry report on record.
3. An additional affidavit has been filed on behalf of the
respondents today. Along with the said affidavit, inquiry report
dated 18.02.2025 has been annexed.
4. As per the said inquiry report, name of Jasraj S/o Harikishan
who had been selected as Gram Panchayat Assistant was not even
(Uploaded on 21/02/2026 at 02:32:49 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:9393] (3 of 4) [WCP-977/2018]
recommended by the SDMC in its meeting dated 02.01.2018. As
per the original minutes of meeting of the SDMC annexed with the
inquiry report, it is Hanuman Singh, Suresh Kumar Godara and
Saukat Khan who had been recommended by the Committee to be
appointed. Neither the name of Jasraj nor that of the present
petitioner Arjun Dan was recommended by the said Committee. As
per the report, Jasraj did not even apply for the said post.
5. During the course of arguments, counsel also furnished the
original register reflecting the minutes of meeting dated
02.01.2018 of the concerned SDMC. After perusal of the said
original register, it is clear on record that neither Jasraj nor the
present petitioner were recommended to be appointed by the
SDMC. Meaning thereby, the selection of Jasraj was de-hors the
law but then it has been pointed out that Jasraj has expired and is
no more. In that view of the matter, this Court does not deem it
appropriate to pass any orders qua Jasraj.
6. So far as the present petitioner is concerned, it is evident
that he too was not entitled to be selected as his name was also
not recommended by the Committee.
7. No case of disobedience of orders of the Court is hence made
out. The present contempt petition is hence, dismissed.
8. Rule stands discharged.
9. However, this Court cannot ignore the fact that the present
petitioner laid his reliance totally on document Annexure-11
annexed with the writ petition which clearly reflected the present
petitioner Arjun Dan to be on second merit. The said document
bears the signature and seal of the Principal of the concerned
school at that point of time. It is further evident that the minutes
(Uploaded on 21/02/2026 at 02:32:49 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:9393] (4 of 4) [WCP-977/2018]
of meeting were also manipulated by the said Principal in so far as
he even changed the first page of the said minutes of meeting.
10. In view of the above, this Court deems it appropriate to
direct the respondents to take disciplinary action in terms of law
against the said Principal, of course, after opportunity of hearing
been afforded to him.
11. Order accordingly.
(REKHA BORANA),J
136-Arvind/-
(Uploaded on 21/02/2026 at 02:32:49 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
