ONGC declared a meritorious OBC candidate medically unfit for the post of Materials Management Officer because a 30% impairment of his left eye left him without binocular vision, although the post was identified as suitable for low-vision candidates. The Rajasthan High Court held that such a candidate cannot be declared unfit merely because he has not claimed reservation or his disability is below the benchmark (para 32), and directed his appointment (para 42).
The Rajasthan High Court dismissed a jeep driver's appeal against his conviction under Section 302 IPC for running down a man who, with his friends, had hired the jeep, after a quarrel over his rash driving. It held that a Section 313 CrPC statement lets the accused put forward his own version but is not strictly evidence and may be used only together with the prosecution evidence (paras 27-28). His explanation was rejected (paras 42-43).
The Rajasthan High Court quashed the cancellation of mining Letters of Intent and prospecting licences in a batch of 64 writ petitions, holding the State's action discriminatory under Article 14. The same ground had already failed against a similarly placed licence holder in Kamlesh Metacast, so the State could not insist that these petitioners first pursue a statutory revision after a second round of litigation (paras 31, 36-39).
A plot owner held a freehold patta and construction permission from the Jodhpur Development Authority, but the military authorities objected because the site lay 40 metres from a Defence Establishment. The Rajasthan High Court dismissed his writ petition against the stop-construction notices. It held that the Ministry of Defence guidelines of 2011 applied, that building so close would compromise confidential defence data, and that the vicinity of Defence Establishments is governed by defence parameters over and above municipal laws (paras 7, 10, 11).
The Rajasthan High Court granted regular bail, on a third application, to an accused charged under Section 8/21 of the NDPS Act over 310 grams of smack (paras 1, 3, 11). The seizure procedure, as seen from the challan papers, prima facie did not show compliance with Section 50 in its true spirit (para 7). With investigation complete, the challan filed and the investigating officer examined, the Court took the Section 37 conditions to be satisfied (paras 7-8).
The Rajasthan High Court quashed orders of a Secretary in the State Home Department that let the Anti Corruption Bureau intercept mobile phones, including two of the petitioner's. Under Rule 419A of the Telegraph Rules only the Secretary in charge of the Home Department could pass them (para 13); they recorded no reasons or public-safety circumstances (paras 7, 10, 15) and were never sent to the Review Committee (para 14). The intercepted recordings must be destroyed and cannot be used in the pending criminal case (para 19).
The Rajasthan High Court dismissed a Scheduled Caste constable’s plea for a direction to the State to relax the qualifying marks for promotion under the proviso to Article 335. Rule 27(2) of the Rajasthan Police Subordinate Service Rules, 1989, which fixes those marks, was not challenged. Articles 16(4) and 16(4A) and the proviso are enabling provisions that leave the decision to the State, and a Union relaxation does not bind it (paras 12, 14-15).
The Rajasthan High Court dismissed eight writ petitions by makers of plastic-laminated paper used for paper cups and plates. It held that their product, 95% paper with a 5% LDPE layer, is a ‘single-use plastic commodity’ covered by the ban notified on 12.08.2021 under the Plastic Waste Management Rules, 2016, though not expressly listed (paras 47-48, 50-53). The Pollution Control Board's closure orders were within its jurisdiction, and the ban is a reasonable restriction under Article 19(6) (paras 60, 73, 77).
The Rajasthan High Court cancelled bail granted by a Special Judge to the alleged central figure in a tramadol and alprazolam racket. The Special Judge had treated the seized psychotropic substances as medicines, ignored commercial quantity and recorded no Section 37 satisfaction; after bail, two investigating officers were transferred or prosecuted, so tampering with the investigation could not be ruled out (paras 18-19, 24-27).
The Rajasthan High Court held that a government employee recorded as female at appointment, who later underwent gender reassignment surgery and identifies as male, is entitled to have his name and gender corrected in his service record (para 17). Reading the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Act, 2019 as beneficial legislation, it held that Section 7 also covers persons who had surgery before the Act (para 15), and fixed time limits for the District Magistrate's certificate and the record change (para 19).
The Rajasthan High Court refused bail to a government doctor accused of driving drunk inside the hospital where he worked, killing one person, causing a pregnant woman's miscarriage and injuring others. Relying on Sanjeev Nanda and Alister Anthony Pareira, it held prima facie that the doctor knew the consequences of driving under the influence of liquor, and that such cases cannot be compared with causing death by rash or negligent driving (paras 7-12).
A Division Bench of the Rajasthan High Court dismissed a habeas corpus petition against a one-year preventive detention ordered by the District Magistrate, Sikar under the Rajasthan Prevention of Anti-Social Activities Act, 2006. The detenu received the order, its grounds and 238 pages of records and was told in writing of his right to make a representation, so Section 9 was met (paras 15, 18). Forwarding the grounds to the Advisory Board within three weeks satisfied Section 11 (para 23).