The Rajasthan High Court dismissed 23 special appeals over BDS admissions for 2016-17. It held that the State validly lowered the NEET percentile by 10, plus 5 in special exigency, under power delegated by the Union, but dental colleges could not relax it further on their own (paras 10.1, 13). Students admitted below that cut-off stand discharged, and each such college must pay ₹50 lakh in costs and ₹25 lakh compensation to each such student (para 18).
A Division Bench of the Rajasthan High Court at Jodhpur dismissed a PIL against the Pali Collector's order of 16.12.2020 directing that all government lands in nine villages of Tehsil Rohat be recorded in the name of the JPMIA Development Authority. Pasture (Gochar) lands had never vested in the Gram Panchayats by virtue of an Act of the Legislature, so Section 27 of the Rajasthan Special Investment Regions Act, 2016 vested them in the Authority (paras 6.48, 6.65).
The Rajasthan High Court held that National Insurance Company was not liable for a 1996 bus accident because the bus was not insured that day. The owner's premium cheque had been dishonoured and the insurer had cancelled the policy by registered notice months before the accident (paras 19-20). Allowing the insurer's appeal, the Court enhanced the compensation to Rs. 3,06,250 on the claimants' appeal and directed the bus owner and driver to pay it with 6% interest (para 23).
The Rajasthan High Court held that Lok Adalats under Chapter VI of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 have no adjudicatory power and can make an award only on a compromise or settlement between the parties (paras 12-13). Because withdrawal of a prosecution under Section 321 CrPC needs the court's consent after application of mind, a Lok Adalat that allowed the prosecutor to withdraw a criminal case and discharged the accused exercised a jurisdiction not vested in it (paras 9, 13).
The Rajasthan High Court set aside a Maintenance Tribunal order that had declared void a son’s 2010 registered gift deed from his mother under Section 23 of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007. Following Sudesh Chhikara, it held that Section 23 applies only if the transfer carries an explicit condition that the transferee will provide basic amenities and physical needs, and the transferee fails to do so. This deed carried no such condition (paras 19, 21-24, 27).
The Rajasthan High Court dismissed writ petitions by candidates who sat the fourth shift of the Patwari Direct Recruitment Examination-2021 and challenged the Selection Board's decision to normalise marks after the examination. Rule 22 and Note 3 of Schedule II of the 2019 Rules let the Board prescribe the scheme, so normalisation was within the Rules though the advertisement did not mention it (paras 10, 13). The expert formula was applied uniformly, and a lower pass rate in one shift did not prove discrimination (paras 25-26, 30).
Village residents challenged, in a public interest writ petition, the declassification of 451 bighas of Gochar (pasture) land and its allotment to the Power Grid Corporation of India Limited (PGCIL) for a grid sub-station. The Rajasthan High Court's Division Bench dismissed the petition, holding that Panchayat consent under Rule 7 of the Rajasthan Tenancy (Government) Rules, 1955 is not mandatory, that the forgery claim against the no-objection letter failed, and that the remaining pasture was 15 times the grazing need (paras 11-14).
The Rajasthan High Court dismissed two petitions under Section 482 CrPC to quash an FIR under Section 419 IPC because the petitioners' earlier petition seeking the same relief had already been dismissed in 2017. Granting the prayer would amount to a review barred by Section 362 CrPC, which inherent powers cannot override (paras 8-12). The Court held that a successive petition with the same prayer is not maintainable (para 13).
The Rajasthan High Court set aside the refusal of compassionate appointment to a widow whose mother-in-law, a ‘Coolie’ in the respondent department, died in harness in 2007 (paras 1-2, 12). Applying Smt. Pinki, it held that the 1996 Compassionate Appointment Rules are a beneficial piece of legislation to be interpreted harmoniously, so a widowed daughter-in-law is part of ‘widowed daughter’ in Rule 2(c) (paras 9-11). The respondents were directed to consider her case within 30 days (para 13).
The Rajasthan High Court dismissed a writ petition by four general-category candidates who wanted reserved-category candidates who had qualified NET/SLET/SET with relaxed marks kept out of unreserved Assistant Professor posts in the RPSC recruitment of 2020. NET/SLET/SET is only a condition of eligibility; merit rests on the written examination and interview, so a relaxation at that stage does not tie a candidate to the reserved category (paras 31, 35, 44). The petition was also premature (paras 41, 45).
The Rajasthan High Court quashed a 1990 conviction for 8.5 kg of opium, holding that police who set out to search a shop and house needed a warrant or recorded grounds under Section 42 of the NDPS Act, even though the accused was caught on the road outside. The Court found the recovery proved and Section 50 complied with, but the Section 42 breach made the search void (paras 32, 48, 53-61).
The Rajasthan High Court dismissed an Environment Engineer's writ petition against the sanction to prosecute him under the Prevention of Corruption Act. The Anti Corruption Bureau had sent a draft sanction order, but the sanctioning authority had weighed the witnesses' evidence and the documents, and its order was not a verbatim copy of the draft (paras 6, 15). Trivial errors in dates and names caused no failure of justice, so the cognizance order stood (paras 12, 16-17).