A Division Bench of the Rajasthan High Court at Jodhpur dismissed a challenge by general-category ex-servicemen to Rule 2(3) of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Absorption of Ex-Servicemen) Rules, 1988, as substituted on 07.12.2022, which makes ex-servicemen reservation in direct recruitment category-wise. The Court held that nothing in the Constitution or any law requires that reservation to be vertical, and that Saurav Yadav and Ramnaresh concern the method of applying horizontal reservation, not its form (paras 13, 19-22).
The Rajasthan High Court quashed proceedings under Sections 107 and 151 CrPC against a law student who was detained after he allegedly raised his voice while accompanying a relative to a counselling session in a matrimonial dispute, and declared his arrest and detention illegal (paras 2-3, 28-29). The Executive Magistrate's half-printed proforma order showed non-application of mind (paras 6, 10). The Court called for a review of ACPs acting as Executive Magistrates and a mechanism within three months (paras 22, 26).
The Rajasthan High Court allowed a writ petition by prisoners at Central Jail, Jodhpur, who sought to attend their pending criminal trials by video conferencing (paras 1, 7). The order records that the petitioner faces 259 cases across districts; the Court held that an accused cannot be physically present at several places at once and that his absence leads to adjournments (paras 2-3). It directed the authorities to arrange video conferencing in the jail and asked the State to consider amending the CrPC (paras 6-8).
The Rajasthan High Court quashed an externment order under the Rajasthan Control of Goondas Act, 1975 that rested only on the petitioner's two convictions under the gambling ordinance. Because Section 3(1) joins its three conditions with ‘and’, the authority must be satisfied not only that a person is a ‘goonda’ but also that his conduct endangers others or he is likely to offend, and that witnesses fear to depose against him, on cogent material (paras 7-10).
A Division Bench of the Rajasthan High Court at Jodhpur upheld the Army Dental Corps' Policy of 1996, under which Short Service Commissioned Officers are assessed for Permanent Commission through a departmental examination, without their confidential reports. The officer had taken that examination three times and failed. Having taken part without protest, he was estopped from attacking the criteria, and judicial review tests a policy's legality, not its wisdom (paras 9-11). The appeal was dismissed (para 13).
The Rajasthan High Court held that under the Waqf Act, 1995 only the Waqf Board can delegate its power to institute and defend suits under Section 32(2)(i), and only to the persons listed in Section 27 (para 20). A power of attorney signed by the Board's Chief Executive Officer, authorising a person outside those categories to exhibit documents for the Board in a pending civil suit, was non-est, and the trial court's order acting on it was set aside (paras 21-23).
In a public interest litigation on Jodhpur's air connectivity pending since 2016, a Division Bench of the Rajasthan High Court observed that the lackadaisical approach of aviation planners had opened the door to a potential violation of the Article 21 right to a meaningful and dignified life (paras 4, 7). Finding that nine years of continuous mandamus had produced no desired results, it ordered affidavits from the Union, CISF, the State and the Jodhpur Development Authority (paras 19-25).
The Rajasthan High Court dismissed six claimants' appeals against Tribunal orders rejecting their accident compensation claims as time-barred. Section 166(3) of the Motor Vehicles Act, as amended, bars entertaining a claim made more than six months after the accident and gives no power to condone delay (paras 9-10, 17). Time spent obtaining copies or awaiting the charge-sheet is not excluded; a police report treated as a claim under Section 166(4) is the only exception (para 19).
The Rajasthan High Court granted bail to a man held for 24.75 grams of a substance the seizure officer took to be MDA, after the FSL found methamphetamine, whose commercial quantity is 50 grams. A seizure officer is not an expert under Section 45 of the Evidence Act, the Court said, and it directed the DGP to ensure FSL reports are obtained, preferably within 60 days (paras 6, 10-12).
A Division Bench of the Rajasthan High Court upheld the Finance Act, 2021 amendment to Section 8(3)(b) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, which took mining, telecommunication and power out of the uses qualifying for the concessional inter-State rate against Form C (paras 3, 6, 10, 28). It held that the excluded and retained industries are not similarly placed, that the mining industry had no vested right to the concession, and that the choice was a policy decision (paras 16, 27).
The Rajasthan High Court quashed the 2008 termination of a constable who had not disclosed that the Juvenile Justice Board had found him guilty when he was 15 (paras 1, 14, 33). Once the benefit of Section 19 of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2000 had been extended to him, the omission could not be termed concealment (para 28). The Court ordered his reinstatement with all consequential benefits and called a juvenile's ‘right to be forgotten’ absolute (paras 30, 34).
The Rajasthan High Court quashed a 2009 order that ended a Muslim-Teli candidate's contractual engagement as Employment Assistant under NREGA on the ground that Muslim-Teli did not fall within the OBC category. State notifications place the Teli caste in the OBC category irrespective of religion, so denying the claim only because he is Muslim was not valid (paras 6-7, 9-10). The Court ordered a fresh decision on his claim and issued a general mandamus to all State departments (paras 11, 14).