A Full Bench of the Rajasthan High Court answered a reference pending since 2003: nominated members who have no right to vote are not counted in the whole number of members when the two-thirds majority for a no-confidence motion against a municipal Chairman or Vice Chairman is computed (paras 1, 10). Following the Supreme Court's three-Judge ruling in Ramesh Mehta, it held Prem Raj Bohra correctly decided and Raees Ahmad distinguishable (paras 9-10). The appeals were disposed of as infructuous (para 12).
The Rajasthan High Court declined to entertain a writ petition by a candidate for Member, Panchayat Samiti, Laxmangarh, whose nomination was rejected at scrutiny on 17 October 2026 (paras 1, 9). His form named a court and gave 18 November 2021 in the charge-framing columns; he said no charges had been framed. Without ruling on that, the Court held that Article 243-O and Section 117 of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 bar interference once the election has begun, leaving him to an election petition (paras 10-12).
The Rajasthan High Court dismissed a writ petition against the rejection of a nomination for Member, Panchayat Samiti, Maujmabad (paras 1, 18). One of the petitioner's proposers had also proposed another candidate, whose nomination was received first; Rule 58(g) of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj (Election) Rules, 1994 invalidates every later nomination signed by the same proposer (paras 9-10). Her remedy is an election petition under Rule 80(c) after the result, as Article 243-O(b) barred interference once the elections were notified (paras 12, 17).
The Rajasthan High Court at Jaipur dismissed a writ petition by two Class IV employees engaged on contract for land-acquisition work on a National Highway No. 8 six-lane project, who were stopped from working in May 2011 without a reasoned order or a hearing (paras 1-2, 7). Their appointment terms allowed termination without assigning any reason, and, under the Supreme Court's ratio in Paramjeet Singh, they could claim no right to continue in service (paras 5-6).
The Rajasthan High Court granted bail to a medical-store owner charged by the Narcotics Control Bureau under Section 8/22(c) of the NDPS Act over psychotropic tablets. Holding that Section 37 is not an absolute embargo, it found that more than twenty months in custody with no likely early end to the trial violated the right to a speedy trial under Article 21, so conditional liberty must prevail (paras 1, 8-11).
A Rajasthan High Court Division Bench refused, at the interim stage, to let an appellant who migrated from Haryana contest the Panchayati Raj elections as a Scheduled Caste candidate (paras 2, 10). A co-ordinate Bench in Rekha Kumari had declined such reservation to migrants; though the issue is pending before the Supreme Court, that judgment is not stayed or set aside (para 9). The stay application was dismissed; the appeal awaits hearing (paras 10, 12).
The Rajasthan High Court held that a transfer order can be challenged only in the rarest of cases, on four grounds: mala fides specifically pleaded and proved, breach of a statutory rule, an incompetent authority, or extreme hardship such as a life-threatening disease (para 11). Finding none made out in a batch of writ petitions by government employees, it allowed them to represent within two weeks, to be decided by reasoned orders, and kept the transfers in abeyance for four weeks (paras 13-16).
The Rajasthan High Court disposed of eleven writ petitions by Constable candidates declared medically unfit, directing fresh examination by separate Medical Boards at the Army Hospital (R&R), New Delhi, whose findings bind both sides (para 18). Following an unchallenged co-ordinate Bench order in Saurabh Singh Sanket, it rejected the plea that the selection was over and the posts filled, holding that the petitioners could not be blamed for delay caused by the Union's own appeals (paras 14-17).
The Rajasthan High Court refused to interfere under Article 227 with orders requiring a son, his wife and their son to vacate the house of his senior citizen mother under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 (paras 1, 3, 9). Holding that authorities may direct the eviction of erring children or relatives to secure a senior citizen's right to live with dignity, it dismissed the petition with Rs 25,000 costs payable to the mother (paras 8, 12).
The Rajasthan High Court dismissed a second appeal by a plaintiff whose 11-month licence to keep a cabin on a rest-house society's premises had expired in July 2001, holding that after expiry he had no right to stay on under an injunction and that the appeal raised no substantial question of law (paras 7, 11, 16). His reliance on the Rajasthan Public Premises Act, 1964, whose Section 10A bars civil suits on eviction from public premises, was rejected (paras 9-10).
The Rajasthan High Court at Jaipur quashed 2021 orders of the Ground Water Resource Department that withdrew a retired employee's second and third selection scales and sought recovery from him (paras 1, 4). It did not decide the issues afresh: the State could not dispute that his case was similar to that of Chauthi Ram, in which a co-ordinate Bench had upheld relief on 19.05.2026, so the Court followed that view (paras 3-4).
The Rajasthan High Court disposed of S.B. Civil First Appeal No. 19/1980, which it described as the oldest first appeal at its Jaipur Bench, arising from a partition suit instituted in 1961 (para 8). The appeal, filed on 02.07.1979 against the preliminary decree of 23.12.1978, was disposed of because a final decree passed with the parties' consent on 13.08.2026 was a subsequent event, following Shipping Corporation of India v. Machado Brothers (paras 5, 8, 11-12, 15).