Rajasthan High Court – Jodhpur
Urn: Saw / 3132U / 2025State Of Rajasthan vs Saroj Bala on 19 May, 2026
[2026:RJ-JD:20915-DB] (1 of 29) [SAW-1162/2025]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 1162/2025
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary,
Secondary Education, Government Secretariat Rajasthan
Jaipur-342005.
2. Director, Secondary Education Samta Nagar, Bikaner
334001.
3. District Eduaction Officer, Jodhpur, Rajasthan.
----Appellants
Versus
1. Chandra Pal Singh S/o Phep Singh Rathore, R/o
Chandawaton Ki Bichli Pol, Gotan, Nagaur, Rajasthan.
2. Rajasthan Staff Selection Board, Through Its Secretary,
State Institute Of Agriculture Management Premises,
Shreeji Nagar, Prithviraj Colony, Durgapura, Jaipur.
3. Rabindranath Tagore University Through Registrar,
Mendua Village, Raisen District, Chiklod Road, Bhopal,
Madhya Pradesh-464993.
----Respondents
Connected With
D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 1143/2025
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Director, Secondary
Education, Rajasthan, Bikaner.
2. The District Education Officer, Secondary Education,
Jodhpur.
3. The Principal, Government Senior Secondary School.
Newra Road, Block Osia, District Jodhpur
----Appellants
Versus
1. Jay Singh Rajpurohit S/o Shri Gajendra Singh, R/o
Jogmaya Mandir, Police Station Mathania, Bheswar
Chawandiyali, Tehsil Tiwari, District Jodhpur, Rajasthan.
2. The Secretary, Rajasthan Staff Selection Board, Jaipur.
3. The Registrar, J.s. University, Shikohabad (Firozabad), 5
K.m. Mile Stone Mainpuri Road, Shikohabad (Up).
(Uploaded on 19/05/2026 at 02:52:54 PM)
(Downloaded on 20/05/2026 at 07:13:55 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:20915-DB] (2 of 29) [SAW-1162/2025]
----Respondents
D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 1146/2025
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary,
Secondary Education, Government Secretariat Rajasthan
Jaipur-342005.
2. Director, Secondary Education Samta Nagar, Bikaner
334001.
3. District Education Officer, Pali, Rajasthan.
----Appellants
Versus
1. Bhagwat Singh S/o Shri Mool Singh, R/o Vpo Noon Bagra,
Jalore, Rajasthan.
2. Rajasthan Staff Selection Board, Through Registrar, State
Institute Of Agriculture Management Premises, Shreeji
Nagar, Prithviraj Colony, Durgapura, Jaipur-302018.
----Respondents
D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 1149/2025
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary Department
Of Education Govt. Of Rajasthan Secretariat, Jaipur
(Raj.).
2. The Director, Directorate Of Secondary Education Bikaner
(Raj.).
3. The District Education Officer (Secondary),
Sawaimadhopur (Raj.).
4. Panchayat Primary Education Officer, Gram Panchayat
Charoda Sawai Madhopur (Raj.).
----Appellants
Versus
1. Seema Devi D/o Shri Madha Ram Ductava, R/o Jato Ka
Bas, Bhgasani, Tehsil Bilara, District Jodhpur, Rajasthan.
2. Rajasthan Staff Selection Board Jaipur, Through Its
Chairman State Of Agriculture Management Premises
Durgapura Jaipur (Raj.).
----Respondents
D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 1150/2025
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary,
Secondary Education, Government Secretary,
(Uploaded on 19/05/2026 at 02:52:54 PM)
(Downloaded on 20/05/2026 at 07:13:55 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:20915-DB] (3 of 29) [SAW-1162/2025]
Rajasthan,jaipur.
2. Director, Secondary Education, Samta Nagar, Bikaner.
3. District Education Officer, Barmer
----Appellants
Versus
1. Ladu Ram S/o Babu Lal, R/o Bishnoiyon Ki Dhani,
Phoolan, Barmer, Rajasthan.
2. Rajasthan Staff Selection Board, Through Registrar, State
Institute Of Agriculture Management Premises, Shreeji
Nagar, Prithviraj Colony, Durgapura Jaipur-302018.
3. J S University, Through Registrar Shikohabad, Firozabad,
Uttarpradesh.
----Respondents
D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 1151/2025
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary,
Secondary Education, Government Secretariat Rajasthan
Jaipur-342005.
2. Director, Secondary Education Samta Nagar, Bikaner
334001.
3. District Education Officer, Rajsamand, Rajasthan.
----Appellants
Versus
1. Chandra Singh Patel S/o Shri Chhila Ram Patel, R/o
Tilaicho Ki Dhmadi, Bilada, Jodhpur, Rajasthan.
2. Rajasthan Staff Selection Board, Through Registrar, State
Institute Of Agriculture Management Premises, Shreeji
Nagar, Prithviraj Colony, Durgapura Jaipur-302018.
----Respondents
D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 1175/2025
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Director, Secondary
Education, Rajasthan, Bikaner.
2. The Joint Director, Secondary Education, Jodhpur
Division, Jodhpur.
3. The District Education Officer, Secondary Education,
Barmer.
4. The Principal, Government Upper Primary School, Village
Pousal, Block Shiv, District Barmer.
(Uploaded on 19/05/2026 at 02:52:54 PM)
(Downloaded on 20/05/2026 at 07:13:55 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:20915-DB] (4 of 29) [SAW-1162/2025]
----Appellants
Versus
1. Harvinder Singh S/o Shri Thakar Singh, R/o Bpo-6-Tk,
Tehsil Raisingh, District Sri Ganganagar, Rajasthan.
2. The Rajasthan Staff Selection Board, Through Its
Secretary, Jaipur.
3. The Registrar, Opjs University, Vpo Rawatsar Kunjla, Near
Sankhu, Fort, Rajgarh (Sadulpur) - Jhunjhunu Road,
Churu (Rajasthan).
----Respondents
D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 1176/2025
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary,
Secondary Education, Government Secretariat Rajasthan
Jaipur-342005.
2. Director, Secondary Education Samta Nagar, Bikaner
334001.
3. District Education Officer, Phalodi, Rajasthan.
----Appellants
Versus
1. Sitaram Chhaba S/o Bhura Ram, R/o Manjhwas,
Jharisara, Nagaur, Rajasthan.
2. Rajasthan Staff Selection Board, Through Its Secretary,
State Institute Of Agriculture Management Premises,
Shreeji Nagar, Prithviraj Colony, Durgapura, Jaipur.
3. Sai Nath University, Through Its Registrar Kuchu Road,
Jirabar, Ormanjhi, Jharkhand-835219.
----Respondents
D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 1177/2025
1. State Of Rajathan, Through Principal Secretary,
Secondary Education, Government Secretariat Rajasthan
Jaipur-342005.
2. Director, Secondary Education Samta Nagar, Bikaner
334001.
3. District Education Officer, Jalore, Rajasthan.
----Appellants
Versus
1. Suresh Kumar S/o Shri Jai Kishan, R/o Kachela, Bagsari,
(Uploaded on 19/05/2026 at 02:52:54 PM)
(Downloaded on 20/05/2026 at 07:13:55 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:20915-DB] (5 of 29) [SAW-1162/2025]
District Jalore, Rajasthan.
2. Rajasthan Staff Selection Board, Through Registrar, State
Institute Of Agriculture Management Premises, Shreeji
Nagar, Prithviraj Colony, Durgapura Jaipur-302018.
----Respondents
D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 1184/2025
1. State Of Rajathan, Through Principal Secretary,
Secondary Education, Government Secretariat, Rajasthan
Jaipur-342005.
2. Director, Secondary Education Samta Nagar, Bikaner
334001.
3. District Education Officer, Jalore, Rajasthan.
----Appellants
Versus
1. Chetan Purohit S/o Shri Vajinga Ram, R/o 571, Narsana,
Jalore, Rajasthan.
2. Rajasthan Staff Selection Board, Through Registrar, State
Institute Of Agriculture Management Premises, Shreeji
Nagar, Prithviraj Colony, Durgapura, Jaipur-302018.
----Respondents
D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 1185/2025
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary,
Secondary Education, Government Secretariat Rajasthan
Jaipur-342005.
2. Director, Secondary Education Samta Nagar, Bikaner
334001.
3. District Education Officer, Phalodi, Rajasthan.
----Appellants
Versus
1. Manesh S/o Shri Surja Ram, R/o Udaniyo Ki Dhani,
Sanwaraj, Jodhpur, Rajasthan.
2. Rajasthan Staff Selection Board, Through Registrar, State
Institute Of Agriculture Management Premises, Shreeji
Nagar, Prithviraj Colony, Durgapura Jaipur-302018.
----Respondents
D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 1187/2025
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary,
(Uploaded on 19/05/2026 at 02:52:54 PM)
(Downloaded on 20/05/2026 at 07:13:55 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:20915-DB] (6 of 29) [SAW-1162/2025]
Secondary Education, Government Secretariat Rajasthan
Jaipur-342005.
2. Director, Secondary Education Samta Nagar, Bikaner
334001.
3. District Education Officer, Jalore, Rajasthan.
----Appellants
Versus
1. Rajaram Beniwal S/o Rameshwar Lal Beniwal, R/o
Baderan, Karkarwala, Bikaner, Rajasthan.
2. Rajasthan Staff Selection Board, Through Registrar, State
Institute Of Agriculture Management Premises, Shreeji
Nagar, Prithviraj Colony, Durgapura, Jaipur-302018.
----Respondents
D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 1188/2025
1. State Of Rajathan, Through Principal Secretary,
Secondary Education, Government Secretariat Rajasthan
Jaipur-342005.
2. Director, Secondary Education Samta Nagar, Bikaner
334001.
3. District Education Officer, Balotra Rajasthan.
----Appellants
Versus
1. Sharvan Choudhary S/o Shri Surja Ram Choudhary, 55,
Kadwasaro Ka Mohalla, Badliya Jodhpur, Rajasthan-
342001.
2. Rajasthan Staff Selection Board, Through Registrar, State
Institute Of Agriculture Management Premises, Shreeji
Nagar, Prithviraj Colony, Durgapura Jaipur-302018.
----Respondents
D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 1192/2025
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Director, Department Of
Secondary Education, Directorate, Bikaner, Rajasthan.
2. The District Education Officer, District Education Head
Office (Secondary), District Karauli, Rajasthan.
3. The Principal, Government Senior Secondary School, Kota
Chhabar, District Karauli, Rajasthan.
----Appellants
(Uploaded on 19/05/2026 at 02:52:54 PM)
(Downloaded on 20/05/2026 at 07:13:55 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:20915-DB] (7 of 29) [SAW-1162/2025]
Versus
1. Rajveer Singh S/o Rameshwar Lal Beniwal, R/o Baderan,
Karkarwala, Bikaner, Rajasthan.
2. Staff Selection Boar, Through Its Secretary, State
Agriculture Management Institute Premises, Durgapura,
Jaipur, Rajasthan.
----Respondents
D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 1199/2025
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary,
Secondary Education, Government Secretariat Rajasthan
Jaipur-342005.
2. Director, Secondary Education Samta Nagar, Bikaner
334001.
3. District Education Officer, Chittorgarh, Rajasthan.
----Appellants
Versus
1. Dashrath Janwa S/o Shri Rajmal Janwa, R/o Jaloda
Jageer, Tehsil Chhoti Sadri, Pratapgarh, Rajasthan.
2. Rajasthan Staff Selection Board, Through Registrar, State
Institute Of Agriculture Management Premises, Shreeji
Nagar, Prithviraj Colony, Durgapura Jaipur-302018.
----Respondents
D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 1468/2025
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary,
Secondary Education, Government Secretariat Rajasthan
Jaipur-342005.
2. Director, Secondary Education Samta Nagar, Bikaner
334001.
3. District Eduaction Officer, Barmer, Rajasthan.
----Appellants
Versus
1. Harsukh Ram S/o Jiwan Ram, R/o Village Manjhwas,
Jharisara, Nagaur, Rajasthan.
2. Rajasthan Staff Selection Board, Through Its Secretary,
State Institute Of Agriculture Management Premises,
Shreeji Nagar, Prithviraj Colony, Durgapura, Jaipur.
3. Sai Nath University Through Its Registrar, Kuchu Road,
(Uploaded on 19/05/2026 at 02:52:54 PM)
(Downloaded on 20/05/2026 at 07:13:55 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:20915-DB] (8 of 29) [SAW-1162/2025]
Jirabar, Ormanjhi, Jharkhand-835219.
----Respondents
D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 1752/2025
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary,
Secondary Education, Government Secretariat, Rajasthan,
Jaipur (Raj.)
2. Director, Secondary Education, Samta Nagar, Bikaner
(Raj.)
3. District Education Officer, Barmer (Raj.)
----Appellants
Versus
1. Saroj Bala D/o Chena Ram Vishnoi, Aged About 27 Years,
R/o B. Dhani, Sanchore, Dist. Jalore (Raj.)
2. Rajasthan Staff Selection Board, Through Its Secretary
State Agricultural Management Institute Premises,
Durgapur, Jaipur (Raj.)
3. Amar Shaheed Kanchan Singh Autonomous P. G. College,
Shivpuri, Fatehpur, Uttar Pradesh, Pin Code- 212656
(Permanent Affiliated To Prof. Rajendra Singh (Rajju
Bhaiya) University Praygyaraj (Formerly Allahabad State
University)
----Respondents
D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 1753/2025
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary,
Education Department, Government Secretariat Rajasthan
Jaipur.
2. Director, Secondary Education, Government Of Rajasthan,
Bikaner.
3. District Education Officer (Headquater), Secondary
Education, Bikaner, Rajasthan.
----Appellants
Versus
1. Vaibhav Bhati W/o Shreetal Bhati, R/o Old Gajner Road,
Near Chungi Chowki, Bikaner, Rajasthan.
2. Rajasthan Staff Selection Board, Through Registrar, State
Institute Of Agriculture Management Premises, Shreeji
(Uploaded on 19/05/2026 at 02:52:54 PM)
(Downloaded on 20/05/2026 at 07:13:55 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:20915-DB] (9 of 29) [SAW-1162/2025]
Nagar, Prithviraj Colony, Durgapura Jaipur-302018.
3. J. S. University, Through Registrar Shikohabad, Firozabad,
Uttarpradesh.
----Respondents
D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 1759/2025
1. State Of Rajasthan, Represented Through Principal
Secretary, Secondary Education, Government Secretariat,
Rajasthan, Jaipur-302005
2. Director, Secondary Education, Samta Nagar, Bikaner-
334001.
3. District Education Officer, (Head Quarter) Jalore,
Rajasthan.
----Appellants
Versus
1. Vikram S/o Shri Narpat Ram, Aged About 25 Years, R/o
Kohlaniyo Ki Dhani, Village Jhotra, Tehsil Chitalwana,
District Jalore
2. Rajasthan Staff Selection Board, Through Registrar, State
Institute Of Agricultural Management Premises, Shreeji
Nagar, Prithviraj Colony, Durgapur, Jaipur-302018.
----Respondents
D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 1798/2025
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary, Department Of
Education, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur
2. The Director, Secondary Education, Bikaner
3. The District Education Officer (Headquarters), Secondary
Pali.
----Appellants
Versus
1. Deepak Bishnoi S/o Shri Babu Lal, Aged About 35 Years,
Resident Of Siyago Ki Dhani, Vishnu Nagar, Luni District,
Jodhpur, Rajasthan.
2. Rajasthan Staff Selection Board, Through Its Secretary
State Agricultural Management Institute Premises,
Durgapur, Jaipur (Raj.)
3. M.A.T.S. University, Aarang - Kharore Highway, Aarang,
(Uploaded on 19/05/2026 at 02:52:54 PM)
(Downloaded on 20/05/2026 at 07:13:55 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:20915-DB] (10 of 29) [SAW-1162/2025]
Raipur, Chhattisgarh-493114.
----Respondents
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Rajendra Prasad, Sr. Advocate-
cum-Advocate General with
Mr. Sajjan Singh Rathore, AAG
assisted by Mr. Anirudh Singh
Shekhawat and Ms. Mehali Mehta
For Respondent(s) : Mr. R.N. Mathur, Sr. Advocate
(Through VC) assisted by
Mr. Lakshya Singh Udawat
Mr. Kuldeep Vishnoi
Mr. Mahesh Chandra Bishnoi
Mr. Divik Mathur
Mr. Manish Patel
Mr. Harsh Raj Purohit
Mr. Pranjul Mehta
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN MONGA
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL BENIWAL
Judgment
Conclusion of arguments and
Reserved on : 28/04/2026
Pronounced on : 19/05/2026
Reportable
(per Sunil Beniwal,J.)
1. Since the present bunch of special appeals involves identical
questions of law and facts, the same are being decided by this
common order.
2. At the outset, it is noted that there was a delay in filing some
of the appeals tagged in the present bunch. While such delay has
already been condoned in certain appeals, it has not been
condoned in the remaining matters. However, considering that the
controversy involved in all the appeals is identical, this Court
deems it appropriate to examine the matters on merits.
(Uploaded on 19/05/2026 at 02:52:54 PM)
(Downloaded on 20/05/2026 at 07:13:55 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:20915-DB] (11 of 29) [SAW-1162/2025]
Accordingly, in order to maintain parity, the delay in filing the
following appeals is also condoned:
(i) DB SAW No.1162/2025
(ii) DB SAW No.1175/2025
(iii) DB SAW No.1176/2025
(iv) DB SAW No.1177/2025
(v) DB SAW No.1185/2025
(vi) DB SAW No.1192/2025
(vii) DB SAW No.1468/2025
(viii) DB SAW No.1752/2025
(ix) DB SAW No.1753/2025
(x) DB SAW No.1759/2025
(xi) DB SAW No.1798/2025
3. The issue in the present bunch of appeals arises from the
judgment rendered by the learned Single Judge in the case of
Shravan Choudhary Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors., S.B. Civil
Writ Petition No.4298/2025 (decided on 08.05.2025). The said
judgment has been assailed in D.B. Special Appeal Writ
No.1188/2025, which is tagged in the present bunch. The
remaining appeals arise out of orders whereby the learned Single
Judge disposed of the writ petitions in terms of the judgment
rendered in Shravan Choudhary (supra).
4. For brevity, facts of D.B. Special Appeal Writ No.1188/2025
are being considered as the detailed judgment was rendered in
the case of Shravan Choudhary (supra) which has been assailed
in the said special appeal.
(Uploaded on 19/05/2026 at 02:52:54 PM)
(Downloaded on 20/05/2026 at 07:13:55 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:20915-DB] (12 of 29) [SAW-1162/2025]
4.1. The facts of the case, as narrated in the memo of appeal, are
that the respondent-petitioner filed a writ petition being S.B. Civil
Writ Petition No.4298/2025 challenging the order dated
15.01.2025, whereby his services on the post of Physical Training
Instructor were terminated. It was pleaded that, pursuant to
Advertisement No. 08/2022 issued by the Rajasthan Staff
Selection Board (hereinafter referred to as ‘RSSB’), the
respondent-petitioner applied for the said post, participated in the
selection process, and upon being selected, was issued an
appointment order dated 18.09.2023, in pursuance whereof he
joined service.
4.2. While the respondent-petitioner was discharging duties as
Physical Training Instructor, he was served with a show-cause
notice dated 24.12.2024. Though he submitted a reply thereto,
the appellants, being dissatisfied with the same, passed the
termination order dated 15.01.2025. The respondent-petitioner,
therefore, sought quashing of the said order with consequential
reinstatement.
4.3. The appellants opposed the writ petition by asserting that
discrepancies were found in the documents submitted by the
respondent-petitioner for securing appointment and that, upon
preliminary enquiry, it was found that he had obtained
employment by playing fraud. It was thus pleaded that his reply to
the show-cause notice was not satisfactory and the termination
order was justified.
4.4. The learned Single Judge, vide order dated 08.05.2025,
allowed the writ petition, quashed the termination order dated
(Uploaded on 19/05/2026 at 02:52:54 PM)
(Downloaded on 20/05/2026 at 07:13:55 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:20915-DB] (13 of 29) [SAW-1162/2025]
15.01.2025 and directed reinstatement of the respondent-
petitioner, while leaving it open for the appellants to proceed in
accordance with law after completion of the ongoing enquiry.
Aggrieved thereby, the appellants have preferred the present
special appeal.
5. Learned Advocate General appearing for the appellants,
while arguing present special appeals, made the following
submissions:
(i) The present matters are not one of mere procedural
irregularity or a non-fundamental defect in the matter of
appointment. Rather, the respondents-petitioners had secured
appointment on the basis of forged/fabricated testimonials and,
therefore, their very entry into service was illegal, void ab initio
and non-est in the eye of law.
(ii) If the respondents-petitioners are permitted to retain the
benefit of appointments obtained by fraud, it would amount to
legitimising an illegality. The respondents-petitioners not only
polluted the sanctity of a public recruitment process, but also
deprived rightful candidates of public employment and drew salary
from public funds without any lawful entitlement. In such matters,
misplaced sympathy or compassion cannot be allowed to override
the rule of law, as any indulgence shown in favour of such
employees would send a wrong signal and defeat the purity of
public employment.
(iii) The appointments obtained by fraud cannot be protected in
law, as fraud vitiates even the most solemn acts. Once it is
established that the respondents-petitioners entered public service
(Uploaded on 19/05/2026 at 02:52:54 PM)
(Downloaded on 20/05/2026 at 07:13:55 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:20915-DB] (14 of 29) [SAW-1162/2025]by producing forged documents, they were never entitled to hold
the posts. In such circumstances, the length of service rendered
by them or the period during which they continued on the posts
becomes wholly irrelevant.
(iv) The question of initiating proceedings under the Rajasthan
Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958
(hereinafter referred to as the ‘Rules of 1958’) for termination of
the respondent-petitioners does not arise, as the termination is
founded not on any misconduct committed during service, but on
the discovery that the initial appointments themselves were
secured by fraud. The Rules of 1958 could have been invoked only
if the misconduct had been committed during the subsistence of
employment, however, in the present matters, the fraud pertains
to a period prior to entry into public service. Therefore, although
the rudimentary principles of natural justice are required to be
followed, the matter cannot be treated as an ordinary disciplinary
proceeding. Reliance was placed on following judgments:
(a) R. Vishwanatha Pillai Vs. State of Kerala and
Ors.; (2004) 2 SCC 105
(b) Regional Manager, Central Bank of India Vs.
Madhulika Guruprasad Dahir and Ors.; (2008) 13
SCC 170
(c) State of Chhatisgarh and Ors. Vs. Dhirjo
Kumar Sengar; (2009) 13 SCC 600
(d) Meghmala and Ors. Vs. G. Narasimha Reddy
and Ors.; (2010) 8 SCC 383
(e) The State of Bihar and Ors. Vs. Kirti Narayan
Prasad; (2019) 13 SCC 250(Uploaded on 19/05/2026 at 02:52:54 PM)
(Downloaded on 20/05/2026 at 07:13:55 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:20915-DB] (15 of 29) [SAW-1162/2025]
(v) Learned Single Judge committed a serious error in observing
that, prior to terminating the services of the respondents-
petitioners, the procedure prescribed under the Rules of 1958 was
required to be followed. It was submitted that the learned Single
Judge failed to appreciate that the present case does not pertain
to any act of indiscipline committed during the course of service so
as to attract the applicability of the Rules of 1958. Rather, the
issue relates to procurement of appointment on the basis of
forged documents. In other words, the matter pertains to the pre-
appointment stage, when the respondents-petitioners were not
yet borne on the service. Upon inquiry, it prima facie emerged that
the respondents-petitioners had secured their appointments on
the basis of forged mark sheets. In such circumstances, the
Department was justified in proceeding to terminate their
services.
It was, therefore, contended that the impugned decision,
whereby the termination orders were set aside on the ground that
the mandatory requirement of conducting an inquiry under the
Rules of 1958 had not been complied with, deserves to be
quashed and set aside.
6. Per contra, learned Senior Counsel Mr. R.N. Mathur, assisted
by Mr. Lakshya Singh Udawat, appearing on behalf of the
respondents-petitioners, while reiterating the submissions
advanced before the learned Single Judge, asserted that the
learned Single Judge was justified in setting aside the termination
orders. Supporting the judgment rendered by the learned Single
Judge, the following submissions were made:
(Uploaded on 19/05/2026 at 02:52:54 PM)
(Downloaded on 20/05/2026 at 07:13:55 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:20915-DB] (16 of 29) [SAW-1162/2025]
(i) While referring to the advertisement dated 16.06.2022,
(Annexure-1A to the writ petition) it was submitted that online
applications were invited from candidates desirous of appointment
to the post of Physical Training Instructor, Grade III. All the
respondents-petitioners, considering themselves eligible,
submitted their application forms. The mark sheets and other
requisite documents, as required under the advertisement, were
duly furnished and their credentials were verified. Upon scrutiny of
these documents, the respondents-petitioners were offered
appointments and, thereafter, were borne on the cadre. If, at a
later stage, the appellants intended to re-verify the credentials or
conduct any inquiry regarding eligibility or any other issue, the
only appropriate recourse available to them was to proceed in
accordance with the Rules of 1958. However, in the present case,
no inquiry whatsoever was conducted. The respondents-
petitioners were neither allowed to participate in the so-called
inquiry nor was a copy of the inquiry report furnished to them so
as to enable them to submit an effective response to the show-
cause notice.
(ii) Upon an application made by the Staff Selection Board, the
State Government issued a communication to the Government of
Uttar Pradesh for verification of the credentials of the
respondents-petitioners. A three-member committee was
constituted and the said committee, in its report, did not record
any adverse finding against the respondents-petitioners which
could have warranted termination of their services. In the absence
of any concrete material, such a harsh action, entailing serious
(Uploaded on 19/05/2026 at 02:52:54 PM)
(Downloaded on 20/05/2026 at 07:13:55 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:20915-DB] (17 of 29) [SAW-1162/2025]
civil consequences, could not have been taken without affording
them an opportunity of personal hearing. However, in the present
case, though a show-cause notice was issued, the inquiry report
referred to therein was not supplied. In the absence thereof, the
respondents-petitioners were not in a position to submit an
effective explanation. The procedure adopted by the appellants is,
therefore, in clear violation of the principles of natural justice. Be
that as it may, the only appropriate course available to the
appellants was to proceed under the Rules of 1958.
(iii) In the alternative, it was submitted that, if this Court is not
inclined to uphold the order passed by the learned Single Judge
and instead considers it appropriate to direct the Committee, as
constituted vide order dated 03.04.2025 passed in S.B. Civil Writ
Petition No.2328/2025, Yashwant v. State of Rajasthan & Ors. and
connected matters, to examine the issue, then the composition of
the said Committee, as indicated in paragraph 16 of the order
dated 03.04.2025, ought to be reconstituted. In particular, it was
urged that the Deputy Superintendent of Police nominated by the
Director General, Special Operations Group, be replaced by any
other officer so as to ensure an unbiased report.
It was further submitted that, in the event the matters are
relegated to the Committee for conducting a fresh inquiry, the
respondents-petitioners be afforded an opportunity of hearing
before their respective claims are adjudicated on merits.
7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
material available on record.
(Uploaded on 19/05/2026 at 02:52:54 PM)
(Downloaded on 20/05/2026 at 07:13:55 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:20915-DB] (18 of 29) [SAW-1162/2025]
8. At the outset, it is noted that the respondents-petitioners
were appointed on the post of Physical Training Instructor, Grade
III, after verification of their credentials. At a later stage, the
genuineness of the documents submitted by them came under
doubt, whereupon an inquiry was conducted by a Committee
constituted by the Staff Selection Board. The said Committee
opined that the documents submitted by the respondents-
petitioners at the time of seeking appointment were not found to
be genuine. The inquiry report was forwarded to the State
Government, which, in turn, communicated with the State of Uttar
Pradesh for verification of the credentials of the University from
where the respondents-petitioners had obtained the
diploma/degree on the basis of which they claimed themselves to
be eligible. Thereafter, the State of Uttar Pradesh constituted a
three-member Committee, and the report prepared by the said
Committee is available on record. However, on perusal of the
same, it does not clearly speak about the genuineness of the
documents. It appears that the State Government finally
concluded that the documents of the respondents-petitioners
relating to their educational qualifications were forged and
fabricated. Thereafter, show-cause notices were issued to them, to
which they submitted their replies. The replies were not found
satisfactory, resulting in passing of the termination orders.
8.1 The termination orders were questioned on the ground that
the procedure adopted by the appellants, while terminating the
services of the respondents-petitioners, was dehors the Rules as
the procedure contemplated under the Rules of 1958 had not been
(Uploaded on 19/05/2026 at 02:52:54 PM)
(Downloaded on 20/05/2026 at 07:13:55 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:20915-DB] (19 of 29) [SAW-1162/2025]
followed. The contention raised by the respondents-petitioners
was accepted by the learned Single Judge.
8.2 At this stage, it would also be apposite to notice the scheme
of the Rules of 1958. Rule 2(f) defines a “Government servant” to
mean a person who is a member of a service or holds a civil post
under the Government of Rajasthan and includes any such person
whose services are temporarily placed at the disposal of the
Government or whose services are placed at the disposal of any
other Government or authority. Further, Rule 3 of the Rules of
1958 provides for applicability of the said Rules to Government
servants. Thus, the very foundation for applicability of the Rules of
1958 is that the person concerned must answer the description of
a “Government servant” within the meaning of Rule 2(f), and
must be holding a civil post under the State Government in a
lawful and valid manner.
8.3 In the present case, the controversy does not relate to any
misconduct committed by the respondents-petitioners after
entering into service. The allegation against them goes to the very
root of their appointments, namely, that they had obtained
appointment on the basis of educational qualification documents
which were alleged to be forged, fabricated or not genuine. Once
the very eligibility and the foundation of appointment are in
question, the matter cannot be treated at par with a departmental
proceeding initiated against a validly appointed Government
servant for misconduct committed during service. The Rules of
1958 are intended to regulate disciplinary control over persons
who are validly borne on Government service. They do not confer
(Uploaded on 19/05/2026 at 02:52:54 PM)
(Downloaded on 20/05/2026 at 07:13:55 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:20915-DB] (20 of 29) [SAW-1162/2025]
protection upon a person whose very entry into service is alleged
to be vitiated by fraud, misrepresentation or production of false
documents. The facts in the present matters reflect that the
termination was founded on the conclusion that the respondents-
petitioners had obtained appointments by submitting documents
whose genuineness was doubted and subsequently treated as
forged/fabricated.
8.4 The definition contained in Rule 2(f) of the Rules of 1958,
therefore, cannot be read in isolation. The expression
“Government servant” presupposes a lawful entry into service. A
person who secures appointment by practising fraud or by
producing forged or fabricated documents cannot be permitted to
contend that, merely because an order of appointment was issued
and he was allowed to work for some time, he acquired the status
of a Government servant so as to insist upon a full-fledged
departmental inquiry under the Rules of 1958. Fraud vitiates every
solemn act. If the appointment itself is void or non est in the eyes
of law, the incumbent cannot claim a statutory protection flowing
from the very appointment which is alleged to have been obtained
fraudulently.
8.5 Rule 3 of the Rules of 1958 also supports the same
conclusion. The applicability clause makes the Rules applicable to
Government servants. It does not enlarge the definition so as to
include within its sweep a person whose appointment is void from
inception. Therefore, where the employer proceeds on the premise
that the appointment itself was obtained by fraud, the matter is
not one of imposing a penalty for misconduct under the Rules of
(Uploaded on 19/05/2026 at 02:52:54 PM)
(Downloaded on 20/05/2026 at 07:13:55 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:20915-DB] (21 of 29) [SAW-1162/2025]
1958, but of declaring that the appointment itself could not have
been continued, as the basic eligibility condition was not fulfilled in
a lawful manner. In such circumstances, the procedure prescribed
for proceedings under the Rules of 1958 would not be attracted.
8.6 The distinction is material. If a duly appointed Government
servant commits misconduct after joining service, the employer is
bound to proceed in accordance with the Rules of 1958. However,
if the appointment itself is alleged to be the result of fraud, false
certificates, forged mark-sheets or fabricated eligibility
documents, the appointee cannot invoke the Rules of 1958 as a
shield to protect an appointment which had no legal foundation.
The protection under Article 311 of the Constitution of India and
the procedural safeguards under the Rules of 1958 are available to
a person who validly holds a civil post. They cannot be extended
to a person who, on account of fraud or false representation, was
never entitled to hold the post.
8.6 The learned Single Judge has not appreciated the difference
between disqualification attached to a candidate on account of
procuring appointment by fraud and an act of indiscipline
committed by a person after entering service. The applicability of
the Rules of 1958 would arise only after a candidate is borne in
service and gets protection under Article 311 of the Constitution of
India. The respondents-petitioners, therefore, could not claim
protection under Article 311 of the Constitution of India or seek
initiation of disciplinary proceedings for an act allegedly committed
by them at a stage when they were not in service.
(Uploaded on 19/05/2026 at 02:52:54 PM)
(Downloaded on 20/05/2026 at 07:13:55 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:20915-DB] (22 of 29) [SAW-1162/2025]
8.7 In the present case, the services of the respondents-
petitioners were terminated on the ground that they had obtained
appointments by playing fraud upon the Selection Board and had
submitted mark sheets in order to claim eligibility, which were
alleged to have been obtained in a fraudulent manner. Since the
appointments themselves were under question, adoption of the
procedure prescribed under the Rules of 1958 was not warranted.
8.8 This view of the Court gains support from the judgments
rendered by the Apex Court in the cases cited by learned counsel
for the appellants. The relevant portions of the said judgments are
reproduced hereinbelow for ready reference:-
R. Vishwanatha Pillai (supra)
“15. This apart, the appellant obtained the appointment in
the service on the basis that he belonged to a Scheduled
Caste community. When it was found by the Scrutiny
Committee that he did not belong to the Scheduled Caste
community, then the very basis of his appointment was
taken away. His appointment was no appointment in the
eyes of law. He cannot claim a right to the post as he had
usurped the post meant for a reserved candidate by playing
a fraud and producing a false caste certificate. Unless the
appellant can lay a claim to the post on the basis of his
appointment he cannot claim the constitutional guarantee
given under the Article 311 of the Constitution. As he had
obtained the appointment on the basis of false caste
certificate he cannot be considered to be a person who
holds a post within the meaning of Article 311 of the
Constitution of India, Finding recorded by the Scrutiny
Committee that the appellant got the appointment on the
basis of false caste certificate has become final. The
position, therefore, is that the appellant has usurped the
post which should have gone to a member of the Scheduled
Caste. In view of the finding recorded by the Scrutiny
Committee and upheld upto this Court he has disqualified
himself to hold the post. Appointment was void from its
inception.
It cannot be said that the said void appointment would
enable the appellant to claim that he was holding a civil
post within the meaning of Article 311 of the Constitution of
India, As appellant had obtained the appointment by
(Uploaded on 19/05/2026 at 02:52:54 PM)
(Downloaded on 20/05/2026 at 07:13:55 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:20915-DB] (23 of 29) [SAW-1162/2025]
playing a fraud he cannot be allowed to take advantage of
his own fraud in entering the service and claim that he was
holder of the post entitled to be dealt with in terms of
Article 311 of the Constitution of India or the Rules framed
thereunder. Where an appointment in a service has been
acquired by practising fraud or deceit such an appointment
is no appointment in law, in service and in such a situation
Article 311 of the Constitution is not attracted at all.
XXX XXX XXX
19. It was then contended by Shri Ranjit Kumar, learned
senior counsel for the appellant that since the appellant has
rendered about 27 years of service the order of dismissal be
substituted by an order of compulsory retirement or
removal from service to protect the pensioner benefits of
the appellant. We do not find any substance in this
submission, as well.
The rights to salary, pension and other service benefits are
entirely statutory in nature in public service. Appellant
obtained the appointment against a post meant for a
reserved candidate by producing a false caste certificate
and by playing a fraud. His appointment to the post was
void and non est in the eyes of law. The right to salary or
pension after retirement flow from a valid and legal
appointment. The consequential right of pension and
monetary benefits can be given only if the appointment was
valid and legal. Such benefits cannot be given in a case
where the appointment was found to have been obtained
fraudulently and rested on false caste certificate. A person
who entered the service by producing a false caste
certificate and obtained appointment for the post meant for
Scheduled Caste thus depriving the genuine Scheduled
Caste of appointment to that post does not deserve any
sympathy or indulgence of this Court. A person who, seeks
equity must come with clean hands. He who comes to the
Court with false claims, cannot plead equity nor the Court
would be justified to exercise equity jurisdiction in his
favour. A person who seeks equity must act in a fair and
equitable manner. Equity jurisdiction cannot be exercised
in the case of a person who got the appointment on the
basis of false caste certificate by playing a fraud. No
sympathy and equitable consideration can come to his
rescue. We are of the view that equity or compassion cannot
be allowed to bend the arms of law in a case where an
individual acquired a status by practising fraud.”
Madhulika Guruprasad Dahir (supra)
“13. Similarly, the plea regarding rendering of services for
a long period has been considered and rejected in a series
of decisions of this Court and we deem it unnecessary to
(Uploaded on 19/05/2026 at 02:52:54 PM)
(Downloaded on 20/05/2026 at 07:13:55 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:20915-DB] (24 of 29) [SAW-1162/2025]
launch on exhaustive dissertation on principles in this
context. It would suffice to state that except in a few
decisions, where the admission/appointment was not
cancelled because of peculiar factual matrix obtaining
therein, the consensus of judicial opinion is that equity,
sympathy or generosity has no place where the original
appointment rests on a false caste certificate. A person who
enters the service by producing a false caste certificate and
obtains appointment for the post meant for a Scheduled
Caste or Scheduled Tribe or OBC, as the case may be,
deprives a genuine candidate falling in either of the said
categories, of appointment to that post, does not deserve
any sympathy or indulgence of this Court. He who comes to
the Court with a claim based on falsity and deception
cannot plead equity nor the Court would be justified to
exercise equity jurisdiction in his favour.
XXX XXX XXX
18. Having considered the matter in the light of the
afore- stated legal position, in our judgment, the decision of
the High Court is untenable. As noted supra, the employee
having accepted the finding of the Scrutiny Committee,
holding that the caste certificate furnished by the employee
was false, the very foundation of her appointment vanished
and her appointment was rendered illegal. Her conduct
renders her unfit to be continued in service and must
necessarily entail termination of her service. Under these
circumstances, there is absolutely no justification for her
claim in respect of the post merely on the ground that she
had worked on the post for over twenty years. The post was
meant for a reserved candidate but she usurped the same
by misrepresentation and deception. In our opinion, the fact
that caste certificate was referred to the Scrutiny
Committee for verification after ten years of her joining the
service and a long time was taken by the Scrutiny
Committee to verify the same is of no consequence in as
much as delay on both the counts does not validate the
caste certificate and the consequent illegal appointment.”
Kirti Narayan Prasad (supra)
“In the instant cases the writ Petitioners have filed the
petitions before the High Court with a specific prayer to
regularize their service and to set aside the order of
termination of their services. They have also challenged the
report submitted by the State Committee. The real
controversy is whether the writ Petitioners were legally and
validly appointed. The finding of the State Committee is
that many writ Petitioners had secured appointment by
producing fake or forged appointment letter or had been
inducted in Government service surreptitiously by
(Uploaded on 19/05/2026 at 02:52:54 PM)
(Downloaded on 20/05/2026 at 07:13:55 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:20915-DB] (25 of 29) [SAW-1162/2025]
concerned Civil Surgeon-cum-Chief Medical Officer by
issuing a posting order. The writ Petitioners are the
beneficiaries of illegal orders made by the Civil Surgeon-
cum-Chief Medical Officer. They were given notice to
establish the genuineness of their appointment and to show
cause. None of them could establish the genuineness or
legality of their appointment before the State Committee.
The State Committee on appreciation of the materials on
record has opined that their appointment was illegal and
void ab initio. We do not find any ground to disagree with
the finding of the State Committee. In the circumstances,
the question of regularisation of their services by invoking
para 53 of the judgment in Umadevi (supra) does not arise.
Since the appointment of the Petitioners is ab initio void,
they cannot be said to be the civil servants of the State.
Therefore, holding disciplinary proceedings envisaged by
Article 311 of the Constitution or under any other
disciplinary Rules shall not arise.”
8.9 In view of the above observations, this Court has no
hesitation in holding that, in the present case, the procedure
prescribed under the Rules of 1958 was not required to be
adopted. However, since the termination orders carried adverse
civil consequences, the principles of natural justice were
nonetheless required to be followed.
9. The judgments noted hereinabove, clearly lay down that
where the appointment is obtained by fraud or on the basis of
false/forged documents, such appointment is no appointment in
the eye of law and the incumbent cannot claim the protection of
Article 311 or disciplinary rules. The principle flowing from the said
decisions squarely applies to the present controversy. The learned
Single Judge, therefore, was not justified in holding that the
appellants were mandatorily required to conduct disciplinary
proceedings under the Rules of 1958 before terminating the
services of the respondents-petitioners.
(Uploaded on 19/05/2026 at 02:52:54 PM)
(Downloaded on 20/05/2026 at 07:13:55 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:20915-DB] (26 of 29) [SAW-1162/2025]
9.1 However, the aforesaid conclusion does not mean that the
respondents-petitioners could be removed without adherence to
the basic principles of fairness. Even where the Rules of 1958 are
not attracted, the employer is required to observe the principles of
natural justice before passing an order which entails adverse civil
consequences. Therefore, issuance of show-cause notice,
disclosure of the material relied upon, and consideration of the
explanation submitted by the concerned employee/appointee
would be necessary. The requirement is not of a full-fledged
departmental inquiry under the Rules of 1958, but of a fair
opportunity to meet the allegation that the appointment was
obtained on the basis of forged or fabricated documents.
9.2 Thus, on a conjoint reading of Rule 2(f) and Rule 3 of the
Rules of 1958, this Court is of the considered view that the
respondents-petitioners could not claim, as a matter of right,
initiation of disciplinary proceedings under the Rules of 1958, once
the very foundation of their appointment was under challenge. The
learned Single Judge erred in treating the case as one of punitive
termination of Government servants governed by the Rules of
1958. The correct approach would be to examine whether the
conclusion regarding forged/fabricated documents was arrived at
after following minimum principles of natural justice and whether
the material relied upon by the appellants was disclosed to the
respondents-petitioners before passing the termination orders.
10. Though the learned Advocate General argued that the
decision to terminate the services of the respondents-petitioners
was taken after affording them an opportunity of hearing, and that
(Uploaded on 19/05/2026 at 02:52:54 PM)
(Downloaded on 20/05/2026 at 07:13:55 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:20915-DB] (27 of 29) [SAW-1162/2025]
show-cause notices were also issued to them, as well as that the
decision to terminate their services was based on the inquiry
conducted by the appellants, this Court is not satisfied with the
manner in which the inquiry was conducted. It is also noted that
the respondents-petitioners were never heard by the so-called
Committee, nor were they provided with a copy of the inquiry
report before their explanation was sought pursuant to the show-
cause notices. That being so, the entire exercise was undertaken
by the appellants without obtaining an appropriate and effective
explanation from the respondents-petitioners.
11. During the course of arguments, this Court put a proposition
to the respondents-petitioners that the Committee, as constituted
by the learned Single Judge vide order dated 03.04.2025 passed
in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.2328/2025, Yashwant v. State
of Rajasthan & Ors. and connected matters, may be directed
to examine their cases and pass fresh orders. The said proposition
was acceptable to the respondents-petitioners, and the learned
Advocate General also fairly stated that he had no objection if
such an order was passed.
The Committee as directed to be formed vide order dated
03.04.2025 is as under:-
“16. Such Committee will be headed by the Secretary of the
Board and would comprise of one officer of Joint Director
level of the Education Department to be nominated by
Principal Secretary of the Education Department and an
officer of the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police to be
nominated by Director General of the Special Operations
Group.
17. The Members be nominated by Principal Secretary of
the Education Department and Director General of the
Special Operations Group within a period of seven days
from today.”
(Uploaded on 19/05/2026 at 02:52:54 PM)
(Downloaded on 20/05/2026 at 07:13:55 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:20915-DB] (28 of 29) [SAW-1162/2025]
11.1 In these circumstances, this Court deems it appropriate to
relegate the matters to the Committee, as constituted by the
learned Single Judge vide order dated 03.04.2025 passed in S.B.
Civil Writ Petition No.2328/2025, Yashwant v. State of
Rajasthan & Ors. and connected matters, with a slight
modification that, in place of the Deputy Superintendent of Police
to be nominated by the Director General, Special Operations
Group, an Administrative Officer not below the rank of an R.A.S.
Officer shall be included. The other members, as suggested by the
learned Single Judge, shall remain the same.
12. Accordingly, the appeals are decided in following terms:-
(i) The appeals are partly allowed. The impugned order passed
by the learned Single Judge, setting aside the termination orders,
is modified to the extent that the observation made by the learned
Single Judge requiring the appellants to follow the procedure
prescribed under the Rules of 1958 before terminating the
services of the respondents-petitioners is set aside.
(ii) The direction given by the learned Single Judge relegating
the matter to the Committee is maintained. However, the
composition of the Committee shall stand modified in the manner
indicated hereinabove.
(iii) The newly reconstituted Committee shall be formed within a
period of fifteen days from today. The Committee shall issue
notices to the respondents-petitioners. Upon receipt of such
notices, the respondents-petitioners shall submit their responses
within a period of one month. After receiving such responses, the
Committee shall conclude the proceedings within a further period
(Uploaded on 19/05/2026 at 02:52:54 PM)
(Downloaded on 20/05/2026 at 07:13:55 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:20915-DB] (29 of 29) [SAW-1162/2025]of two months. In any event, the entire exercise shall be
completed within a period of four months.
13. Needless to observe that, if the Committee records its
opinion in favour of the respondents-petitioners, the State
Government shall recall the termination orders and reinstate the
respondents-petitioners with all consequential benefits.
Conversely, if the termination orders meet approval of the
committee, the respondents-petitioners shall be at liberty to avail
appropriate remedy in accordance with law.
14. Pending application(s), if any, stand(s) disposed of.
(SUNIL BENIWAL),J (ARUN MONGA),J
-skm/-
(Uploaded on 19/05/2026 at 02:52:54 PM)
(Downloaded on 20/05/2026 at 07:13:55 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
