The Rajasthan High Court held that a widowed daughter-in-law falls within ‘dependent’ under Rule 2(c) of the Rajasthan Compassionate Appointment of Dependents of Deceased Government Servants Rules, 1996, read purposively as part of ‘widowed daughter’ (paras 20, 25). Following its Division Bench ruling in Sushila Devi, which the Supreme Court left undisturbed, it allowed a widow's special appeal, rejected the plea of delay and ordered her compassionate appointment within three months, with prospective benefits (paras 19, 29-30).
The Rajasthan High Court held that a bank employee who left service on medical grounds after 26 years could not lose his pension because, on the Bank's own advice, his application used the word ‘resignation’ instead of ‘retirement’ (paras 12-13.2). The compassionate-appointment Circular No. PER/48/83 required no resignation (paras 8, 10). Reading the term purposively, the Division Bench quashed the order of 19.01.2000 and directed full pensionary benefits to his legal representatives within three months (paras 13.1, 16).
A Division Bench of the Rajasthan High Court dismissed two special appeals by NEET (UG)-2023 candidates with disabilities whom designated Disability Assessment Boards had declared ineligible for the undergraduate medical course (paras 2, 14, 60). Holding that the 2019 amendments to the Graduate Medical Education Regulations make eligibility, beyond the percentage of disability, a matter for those Boards, the Court declined to sit in appeal over the experts' opinion or to order a fresh examination (paras 39, 41, 45).
Two minor sons living with their father refused to meet their estranged mother. The Rajasthan High Court held that both parents are crucial in a child's upbringing and that courts should act as facilitators to bridge the gap between children and an estranged parent (para 16). Since no implementable order could force the boys to meet her, it directed weekly counselling by a psychologist before the Family Court decides the mother's visitation plea (paras 20-23), and imposed Rs 2 lakh costs on the father (para 24).
A suit filed before a revenue court in 1981 was still at the defendants' evidence stage in 2023 because both sides kept seeking adjournments. The Rajasthan High Court held that the right to a speedy trial under Article 21 had been grossly violated (para 21) and directed the SDO, Reni (Alwar) to decide it within six months, day to day (paras 23-24). A general mandamus requires all subordinate revenue courts to follow the Yashpal Jain directions and prioritise their oldest cases (paras 26, 28).
The Rajasthan High Court held that a Registrar of Marriage cannot refuse to register a marriage solemnised in India only because one spouse is not an Indian citizen. Such a refusal violates the foreign spouse's right to equality under Article 14, which protects every person (paras 21, 28). The Court directed registration of the petitioners' 2010 Hindu marriage, subject to proof of a valid marriage, and issued a general mandamus to amend the State's guidelines, application format and e-portal (paras 31-32).
The Rajasthan High Court dismissed a son's writ petition seeking compassionate appointment after his missing father, a Class-IV employee, was declared dead by a civil court. Justice Arun Monga noted that the family waited about nine years to lodge a missing person report, and did so only after the department refused to presume death (paras 7-9). Compassionate employment gives immediate succour on a sudden death; the long gap showed the family had managed otherwise (second para 10).
The Rajasthan High Court quashed the preliminary enquiry report against the Mayor of Jaipur Municipal Corporation Heritage and her suspension under Section 39(6) of the Rajasthan Municipalities Act, 2009, because the enquiry officer had also acted as the State's officer-in-charge against her in her earlier writ petition, filing reply and affidavits (paras 26, 32). The dual role created a reasonable apprehension of bias (paras 19, 22-23). The State was directed to appoint a new enquiry officer and hold a fresh enquiry (para 33).
The Rajasthan High Court directed the authorities to issue a passport forthwith to an 11-year-old boy abandoned by his father. Under Clauses 4.4 and 4.5 of the passport Compendium, a single parent need only file an Annexure ‘C’ affidavit, which his mother had done (para 15). The authorities could not insist on an Indian court's declaration on the parents' consent divorce in California, where the family had lived (paras 11-12, 18).
The Rajasthan High Court quashed the State's refusal of maternity leave to a woman government employee whose twins were born through surrogacy. Rule 103 of the Rajasthan Service Rules, 1951 is silent on surrogacy, but the Court held that no distinction can be made between a natural mother, a biological mother and a mother who begets a child through surrogacy, because Article 21 includes the right of motherhood (para 29). It directed 180 days' maternity leave with consequential benefits (para 30).
The Rajasthan High Court held that a man given in adoption is no longer the ‘brother’ of his biological brother for the stamp duty exemption on family gift deeds under the State notification of 06.03.2013 (paras 14-17). Reading the notification strictly with Section 12 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956, which severs all ties with the birth family from the date of adoption, it dismissed the donee's challenge to a demand for the duty difference, interest and penalty (paras 6-7, 18).
A Division Bench of the Rajasthan High Court upheld the refusal of an MBBS seat to a NEET UG 2021 candidate who had studied Biology only in Class 12. The eligibility criteria require Physics, Chemistry and Biology in the last two years of 10+2 study, and the Court held two years of Biology to be an essential requirement (para 24). The earlier rulings relied on by the appellant did not decide the two-year question (paras 15, 17-21).