The Rajasthan High Court dismissed the State's appeal against a mandamus to appoint a hearing-impaired candidate from Uttar Pradesh to the single Assistant Professor (Mathematics) post reserved for that category. Nothing in the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 or the Rajasthan Rules of 2018 confines disability reservation to Rajasthan residents; a disability certificate is valid across the country under Section 58(3), and denial on the ground of residence offends Article 16(2) (paras 16-23).
The Rajasthan High Court held that when enough widow-category candidates are not available, divorcee candidates may be shifted to the unfilled widow-category posts, applying its earlier judgment in Nikhat Amin v. State of Rajasthan (paras 3-8). Under that ruling, a candidate so shifted is judged against the widow category's cut-off. Divorcee candidates left out of the 2022 Primary Teacher recruitment by a revised cut-off were to be considered for appointment, subject to vacancies and merit (para 10).
The Rajasthan High Court held that the claim of a married daughter whose father died in service on 20.01.2021 was governed by the old definition of ‘dependent’ in Rule 2(c) of the Rules of 1996, as read by the Larger Bench in Priyanka Shrimali, and not by the 28.10.2021 amendment, which admits a married daughter only if no son or unmarried, widowed or divorced daughter is available (paras 7.1-9). It quashed the rejection and directed her appointment within three months (para 11).
The Rajasthan High Court quashed a Permanent Lok Adalat order directing the Jaipur Development Authority to seize and dismantle a Reliance Jio mobile tower. A dispute about installing a mobile tower is not a "public utility service" under Section 22A(b) of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987, so the Lok Adalat had no jurisdiction (paras 13, 22-23). The complaint was sent to the District Telecom Committee under clause 15(4) of the Government order of 06.02.2017 (para 26).
The Rajasthan High Court held that it could hear the Jaipur Development Authority's writ petition against orders of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC), rejecting the objection that, as the NCDRC sits in Delhi, only the Delhi High Court could. The complaint was decided at Jaipur, where the State Commission later issued bailable warrants in contempt proceedings (paras 15, 17). Holding that a litigant should not suffer for its counsel's absence, the Court restored the appeal the NCDRC had dismissed in default (paras 7, 18).
The Rajasthan High Court quashed an order declaring a selected Constable candidate ineligible over a criminal case from his time as a juvenile. The Juvenile Justice Board had convicted him but, under Section 24 of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015, removed the disqualification and ordered the record destroyed, so his ‘No’ to the criminal-case question was not concealment (paras 10, 18). The Court restrained the State from seeking such information and directed his appointment if otherwise eligible and in merit (paras 20-21).
The Rajasthan High Court held that a candidate with a spinal deformity, which the Centre's notification of 24.08.2022 places under locomotor disability, could not be kept out of the disabled category in the Ayurved Medical Officer recruitment of 2023. The State's order of 04.04.2023 ignored that amendment and "cannot be countenanced" (paras 5-8). The petition was allowed, and Rs. 50,000 costs were imposed on the State for forcing her to litigate a settled point (paras 9-10).
The Rajasthan High Court held that a husband who is a co-accused under trial for his wife's murder is ineligible to claim benefits arising from her death, though she had named him as the beneficiary in her service record (paras 7-8). It directed the department to work out her service benefits in all legal heirs' admissible shares, withhold the father's share and pay the children theirs, with interest, within four months (paras 8-11).
The Rajasthan High Court dismissed a writ petition by a candidate in the Specially Abled category whose application was rejected after a Medical Board constituted by the Recruitment Agency assessed his disability at 18 to 20%, against the 48% certified by a Chief Medical & Health Officer (paras 1-5). The certificate named neither the physician nor his specialty, and the Court would not sit in appeal over the specialists' opinion without mala fides (paras 8-10).
The Rajasthan High Court held that Section 357A CrPC and the Rajasthan Victim Compensation Scheme, 2011 apply to crimes committed before they came into force. Following the Kerala, Calcutta and Karnataka High Courts, it directed payment of Rs 3,00,000 to a minor rape victim, after adjusting the amount she had already received, within three months (paras 19, 21, 23-24). It also issued a general mandamus for minor rape victims of incidents before 2009 who had applied before the amendment (para 25).
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).