LexPINKY MEENA versus THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR & ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2025] 7 S.C.R. 79 : 2025 INSC 756 Pinky Meena v. The High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jodhpur & Anr. (Civil Appeal No. 7091 of 2025) 22 May 2025 [B.V. Nagarathna and Satish Chandra Sharma,* JJ.] Issue for Consideration Whether the appellant was wrongly discharged from service as a Civil Judge on the ground of non-disclosure of past government service as a Teacher and having obtained LL.B. and B.Ed degree simultaneously, and LL.M. degree as a regular student while being in service as a teacher. Headnotes† Rajasthan Judicial Service Rules, 2010 – rr.14, 44-46 – Appellant was discharged from service as a Civil Judge on the ground of non-disclosure of past government service as a Teacher – Sustainability: Held: Non-disclosure of past government service cannot be a ground for discharging the appellant – On the date of interview, the appellant was no longer a government servant as she had tendered her resignation much prior to the interview – Thus, the question of disclosing the past government service was not a material irregularity or a serious misconduct for which she ought to be discharged from service especially when she has successfully completed her training without any blemish – Further, misconduct, if any, in respect of obtaining LL.B. and B.Ed degree simultaneously or in respect of LL.M. degree related to the service period prior to being a Judicial Officer when she was serving as a Teacher with the Government of Rajasthan – Show cause notice and discharge order quashed – Appellant to be reinstated in service with all consequential benefits – Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958. [Paras 17, 18, 27, 32] Service Law – Probation – Termination from service – On account of unsuitablility for the job vis-à-vis owing to a * Author 80 [2025] 7 S.C.R. Supreme Court Reports misconduct – Effect – Duty of Courts – Discussed – Articles 14, 16 – Rajasthan Judicial Service Rules, 2010 – rr.14, 44-46. [Paras 24, 26] Judiciary – Greater participation of women in judiciary, emphasized – Importance of advancing women’s greater participation in the judiciary, stated. [Paras 28- 30] Case Law Cited Shamsher Singh v. State of Punjab [1975] 1 SCR 814 : (1974) 2 SCC 831; Raj Kumar v. Union of India [1968] 3 SCR 857; Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut Prasaran Nigam Ltd. v. Anil Kanwariya [2021] 7 SCR 710 : (2021) 10 SCC 136; Hari Singh Mann v. State of Punjab, AIR 1974 SC 2263; State of Punjab and another v. Sukh Raj Bahadur [1968] 3 SCR 234; H.F. Sangati v. Registrar General, High Court of Karnataka [2001] 2 SCR 83 : (2001) 3 SCC 117; Rajesh Kohli v. High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and others [2010] 11 SCR 699 : (2010) 12 SCC 783; Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur v. Akashdeep Morya & Anr., 2021 INSC 485 : [2021] 10 SCR 723; Jaswantsingh Pratapsingh Jadeja v. Rajkot Municipal Corporation [2007] 10 SCR 1124 : (2007) 10 SCC 71 – referred to. List of Acts Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958; Rajasthan Judicial Service Rules, 2010; Constitution of India. List of Keywords Rajasthan Judicial Service (RJS); Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate; Discharge from service; Non-disclosure of past government service; Not a material irregularity or a serious misconduct; Discontinued from service; Termination from service; Government Teacher; Teacher Grade–II; Education Department, Government of Rajasthan; No longer a government servant; Tendered resignation much prior to the interview; Probationer; Probation period; Suppression of material information; Misconduct; LL.B. and B.Ed degree obtained simultaneously, Degree obtained in the same year; LL.M. degree; University of Rajasthan; Judicial Officer; No Objection Certificate (NOC); Show cause notice and discharge order quashed; Termination simpliciter; Full Court; Reinstatement in service with consequential benefits; Principles [2025] 7 S.C.R. 81 Pinky Meena v. The High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jodhpur & Anr. of natural justice violated; Judiciary; Women’s greater participation in the judiciary; Gender equality; Representation of women in the judiciary. Case Arising From CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 7091 of 2025 From the Judgment and Order dated 24.08.2023 of the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jaipur in DBCWP No. 6752 of 2020 Appearances for Parties Advs. for the Appellant: P.S.Patwalia, Sr. Adv., Mayank Jain, Parmatma Singh, Madhur
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.