LegalFirms.in
LegalFirms.in Judgments · legalfirms.in/judgments/pinky-meena-vs-the-high-court-of-judicature-for-rajasthan-at-jodhpur-anr-20250522/ · Printed 07 Nov 2026
Civil · Reportable judgment

Pinky Meena vs The High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jodhpur & Anr.

Court
Supreme Court of India
Date
22 May 2025
Case No.
Civil Appeal No. 7091 of 2025
Bench
B.V. Nagarathna, Satish Chandra Sharma
Citation
[2025] 7 S.C.R. 79 : 2025 INSC 756
Acts & Sections
Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification… Rajasthan Judicial Service Rules, 2010 Constitution
Supreme Court Reports [2025] 7 S.C.R. 79 : 2025 INSC 756
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.
Headnote

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 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]

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

As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Headnotes prepared by: Divya Pandey. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.

Full Judgment Text

Judgment Satish Chandra Sharma, J. 1. Leave granted. 2. The present appeal is arising out of order dated 24.08.2023 passed in D.B.Civil Writ Petition No. 6752 of 2020 by the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan Bench at Jaipur (hereinafter referred to as “High Court”) dismissing the writ petition preferred by the appellant. The High Court by way of the aforesaid order has declined relief to the appellant against show cause notice dated 17.02.2020 and the discharge order dated 29.05.2020. 3. The facts of the case reveal that the appellant before this Court is holding a degree in Bachelor
Full text available to subscribers
Subscribe to access complete judgment text, daily digests, and AI-powered legal research tools. For informational and research purposes only.
View Subscription Plans →
Annual plans from ₹1,599 + GST.

This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.

All SC judgments →