LiveLaw Rajasthan High Court Weekly Round-Up: October 12 - October 18, 2026
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 430 - 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 439
Nominal Index
L v B; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 430
V v Through Member Secretary, Rajasthan State Legal Services Authority (RALSA) & Ors.; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 431
Kashif Khan & Ors. v the High Court of Judicature of Rajasthan & Ors.; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 432
Avinash Bhatnagar v the Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation & Ors.; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 433
Vikram Singh v State of Rajasthan & ors.; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 434
HK Meena v State of Rajasthan & Anr, and other connected matter; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 435
Monu Mohammed & Ors. v State of Rajasthan; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 437
Santosh Bansal v State of Rajasthan; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 438
Ramniwas v State of Rajasthan, and other connected petition; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 439
Order/Judgments of the Week
Title : L v B
CITATION : 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 430
Rajasthan High Court has held that persons belonging to Scheduled Tribes following Hindu traditions and customs will be governed by Hindu Marriage Act and thus cannot be relegated to customary courts when the parties themselves admit that they are following Hindu rites.
In doing so the court granted divorce to a couple belonging to Meena Community under the Hindu Marriage Act after noting that the parties were admittedly observing Hindu rites, customs and traditions and their marriage was solemnized as per Hindu rituals.
The division bench of Justice Sudesh Bansal and Justice Ravi Chirania quashed a Family Court order which had denied an application filed by the parties seeking divorce based on mutual consent on the ground that it was not established that the marriage was dissolved as per customs and usages of “Meena Community”.
Title : V v Through Member Secretary, Rajasthan State Legal Services Authority (RALSA) & Ors
CITATION : 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 431
Rajasthan High Court set aside an order of the District Legal Service Authority (DSLA) against a young Legal Aid Defence Counsel that terminated his services and passed stigmatic remarks about his services being negligent and unsatisfactory, to the extent of expunging the adverse remarks that were passed without any enquiry, while retaining the termination.
The bench of Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand highlighted that petitioner-counsel was engaged on a contractual basis under the Legal Aid Defence Counsel Scheme (LADCS) which was discontinued with a direction to State Legal Services Authority to not renew any contracts. In this light, services of the petitioner could not be allowed to continue.
Title : Kashif Khan & Ors. v the High Court of Judicature of Rajasthan & Ors.
CITATION : 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 432
The Rajasthan High Court has held that vacancies in public employments that arise on account of non-joining or subsequent resignations are considered fresh vacancies that are required to be filled by a new recruitment process and not by operating the reserve or waiting list prepared pursuant to the concerned selection process.
The division bench of Chief Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal and Justice Baljinder Singh Sandhu observed that the candidates appearing in the reserve or waiting list of a particular recruitment process could not claim a right to appointment against such vacancies, merely due to their inclusion in the reserve/waiting list.
Title : Avinash Bhatnagar v the Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation & Ors.
CITATION : 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 433
The Rajasthan High Court has held that once a person accepts a lower post offered as compassionate appointment, s/he cannot subsequently claim appointment to a higher post.
The bench of Justice Bipin Gupta was dealing with a case where the petitioner had accepted compassionate appointment to the post in 2013 on which he also worked for 2 years, before filing the present petition in 2015 seeking appointment at a higher post.
Court opined, “it cannot be disputed that the relevant date for consideration of a claim for compassionate appointment depends upon the applicable rules and the law governing such appointment on date of death. However, in the present case, once the petitioner accepted the lower post offered to him without any demur and continued to work thereon for almost two years, he could not subsequently claim appointment to a higher post”.
Title : Vikram Singh v State of Rajasthan & ors.
CITATION : 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 434
The Rajasthan High Court has set aside the termination of an employee who was dismissed from service for allegedly concealing a past conviction in a criminal case, holding that the benefit of probation under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, protects against disqualification arising from the conviction under Section 12 of the Act.
The bench of Justice Anand Sharma observed that non-disclosure of a past conviction does not automatically warrant termination. It held that an employer must objectively consider the relevant circumstances, including the employee's age at the time, the nature and outcome of the criminal case, and whether the alleged non-disclosure materially affected the employee's eligibility for service.
Title : HK Meena v State of Rajasthan & Anr, and other connected matter
CITATION: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 435
The Rajasthan High Court has held that a request to extend the date of voluntary retirement cannot be ignored if it is made before the retirement takes effect, even if the applicable service rules do not expressly provide for such an extension.
The Division Bench of Chief Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal and Justice Inderjeet Singh observed that although the Rajasthan Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1996, do not prescribe a procedure for extending the date of voluntary retirement, the absence of such a provision does not prohibit an employee from seeking an extension, particularly when the retirement has not yet taken effect.
“…merely because the writ petitioner has not used the specific term “withdrawal”, the communication made by him seeking extension of his date of voluntary retirement could not have been ignored when he clearly conveyed that he does not want his earlier retirement to take effect on the previously fixed date.”
Title : Monu Mohammed & Ors. v State of Rajasthan
CITATION : 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 437
The Rajasthan High Court has held that the fundamental consideration in the question of whether private defence was exceeded, cannot be based on a calm and retrospective appraisal the concerned person could have adopted, but whether the force employed could reasonable by assessed towards imminent danger as it appeared to the person then.
The bench of Justice Farjand Ali further opined that where the person apprehended the assailant to be capable of causing grave injury or taking life, the degree of fear the resulted from such apprehension was the relevant factor in answering the aforementioned question, and the plea of self defence must be examined without adopting a hyper-technical approach.
“It would, therefore, be legally impermissible to determine the question of excess by isolating the injuries caused from the circumstances in which they were inflicted or by applying a standard of detached deliberation to a situation of sudden peril.”
Title : Santosh Bansal v State of Rajasthan
CITATION : 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 438
The Rajasthan High Court has quashed two FIRs registered against the sitting Hanumangarh MLA Ganesh Raj Bansal, his wife Santosh Bansal and their daughter in connection with alleged fraudulent transactions involving municipal land dating back to 2003.
Holding that the 'registration of both the FIRs is just an abuse of the process of law', the bench of Justice Ashok Kumar Jain directed:
"Having considered the entirety and all the facts as narrated in the FIRs, No. 624/2026 and 625/2026, we are of the view that the registration of both the FIR are just an abuse of the process of law, that too after 23 years for the alleged official act of petitioner No. 1 is just an act of vendetta and harassment.The complainant having personal prejudices and bias to show animosity. Thus, these are illustrative categories as mentioned in the case of Bhajan Lal (supra), and also in subsequent judgments till date.Therefore, we are not hesitant in arriving at a conclusion that the registration of the FIRs and all subsequent proceedings are sufficient to draw a conclusion that these are abuse of the process of law.
Title : Ramniwas v State of Rajasthan, and other connected petition
CITATION : 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 439
Rajasthan High Court rejected second bail applications of accused persons charged with compromising the sanctity of UIDAI (Aadhar Card Project) by assisting a person who was operating an Aadhar Card Enrollment/Updatation Centre which was not in accordance with the conditions of UIDAI.
The bail applicants were government officials, who were working as programmer and assistance programmer, who were accused of being involved in fabrication, manipulation, and preparing forged and false Aadhar cards which could be used in anti-national activities.
While rejecting the bail application, the bench of Justice Ashok Kumar Jain observed that Rajasthan was a bordering state to Pakistan, and in border areas, resignation and updation in Aadhar data gave rise to activities that might be prejudicial to national interest.