The Rajasthan High Court has observed that a communication issued by a competent authority would prevail over information furnished under the Right to Information Act, particularly when there is no material on record rebutting the contents of the official communication.

A division bench of Justice Inderjeet Singh and Justice Sandeep Taneja made the observation while allowing a batch of appeals filed by the State against a Single Judge's order directing the appointment of the respondents to the post of Prabodhak.

It was the case of the State that the respondents were working as Para Teacher and had applied for the post of Prabodhak. Their candidature was rejected on the ground that they did not have requisite experience on account of taking break in service in last 5 years of more than 180 days.

This order was challenged by the respondents on the ground of parity, submitting that there were certain other similarly situated people who were given appointments.

It was argued that based on the information received under RTI, a person had taken around 721 leaves, and still she was given appointment.

This fact was opposed by the State, submitting that the concerned person had taken only 149 days of leave, and since the appointment of Prabodhak was governed by the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Parbodhak Service Rules, 2008, the concerned person was eligible.

In relation to this submission, the State placed on record a letter by the Joint Director, Elementary Education.

After hearing the contentions, the Court highlighted that the relief claimed by the respondents was solely based on the ground of parity with other candidates who allegedly had similar breaks in their service and yet were given appointments.

In this regard, the Court firstly opined,

“…the contention of the respondents, based on the information allegedly obtained under the RTI Act, that Smt. Raja Bai Solanki had availed leave for 721 days, has no merit and deserves to be rejected… letter issued by the Joint Director, Elementary Education, a competent authority, would prevail over the information furnished under the RTI Act, particularly in the absence of any material on record rebutting the contents of the said communication.”

Furthermore, the Court observed that the respondents failed to produce any other instances or appointment orders to substantiate their plea.

Accordingly, the order passed by the single judge was set aside, and the respondents were held to be not entitled for appointment.

Title: State of Rajasthan & Ors. v Amita Sharma, and other connected appeals

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 332

Click Here To Read/Download Order