Full Judgment Text
2025 INSC 756
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. OF 2025
[Arising out of SLP (C) No. 23529 of 2023]
PINKY MEENA …APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
THE HIGH COURT OF
JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
AT JODHPUR & ANR.
…RESPONDENT(S)
J U D G M E N T
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
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
NEETU SACHDEVA
Date: 2025.05.22
15:45:22 IST
Reason:
SLP(C) No. 23529 of 2023 Page 1 of 21
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 of Arts, Bachelor of
Education, Bachelor of Laws and Masters in Law, and was
serving as Teacher Grade–II in the Education Department,
Government of Rajasthan with effect from 30.12.2014. The facts
further reveal that an advertisement was issued by the High Court
inviting applications for the post of Civil Judge and Judicial
Magistrate on 18.11.2017. Pursuant to her application for the post
of Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate, she was selected for the
post in question. The appointment order was issued on
11.02.2019 and the appellant joined as a trainee RJS on
06.03.2019, and completed her training successfully on
07.03.2020. Vide order dated 06.03.2020, the appellant was kept
under Awaiting Posting Order (“APO”) and later her headquarter
was changed vide order dated 23.03.2020 from Jodhpur to
District and Sessions Judge, Jaipur Metro. A notice was issued to
her on 17.02.2020 directing her to furnish a pointwise
explanation to certain queries raised by the High Court and a
reply was submitted by her on 02.03.2020. The show cause notice
was issued under Rule 16 of Rajasthan Civil Services
(Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958 and an Inquiry
Report was also submitted in the matter. The Inquiry Report was
SLP(C) No. 23529 of 2023 Page 2 of 21
placed before the Full Court of the High Court, and the Full Court
arrived at a conclusion not to continue the appellant in service as
she was a probationer and no certificate in respect of completion
of probation period was issued by the High Court. The appellant
being aggrieved by the order discharging her from service dated
29.05.2020 preferred a writ petition before the High Court and
the High Court has dismissed the same.
4. The show cause notice issued by the respondent sought
explanation from the appellant on five counts which are detailed
as under:
“a) While studying in LL.B. first year, the
petitioner also obtained degree of B.Ed. in the same
year, thus fraudulently succeeding in showing
attendance in both the courses. The contention of
the petitioner is that she did not obtain the degree
of LL.B and B.Ed. in the same year. As per the
Ordinance No.168A of the Ordinance Handbook of
Rajasthan University, a candidate cannot appear in
two main examinations in the same year. As per the
petitioner, LL.B First Year Examination is not main
examination for obtaining the degree of LL.B.
b) The petitioner while being in Government job
as a Teacher did her LL.M. and again fraudulently
succeeded in showing attendance in both the
courses. The petitioner has given the explanation
that she did not show her attendance fraudulently at
SLP(C) No. 23529 of 2023 Page 3 of 21
two places simultaneously because generally no
regular classes are held for LL.M. in the University.
c) The petitioner concealed the fact of her
employment in Government job as a Teacher in the
checklist submitted at the time of interview of RJS.
To this the petitioner has given her explanation to
the effect that, there were no columns in Checklist
for Interview wherein she was required to say that
she was employed in Government service. The
petitioner submitted that she had filled her checklist
on 02.11.2018, whereas the petitioner submitted her
resignation from the government service on
25-10-2018 and had stopped reporting to service.
d) The petitioner did not obtain any permission
or ‘No Objection Certificate’ from the Education
Department for appearing in the RJS Examination.
To this the petitioner has given explanation that
there is no provision in RJS Rules to obtain prior
permission from the employer for appearing in RJS
examination.
e) The petitioner upon selection in RJS
concealed this information from the High Court as
well as from Education Department and joined the
judicial services after resignation on medical
grounds. To this the petitioner has explained that as
on the date of joining RJS, the petitioner was not in
Government service, therefore, no information was
required to be furnished by the petitioner.”
5. The aforesaid allegations reveal that the appellant while in
service of the Education Department of the State of Rajasthan
SLP(C) No. 23529 of 2023 Page 4 of 21
obtained LL.B. and B.Ed degree in the same year, obtained
LL.M. degree while being in service as a teacher showing her
attendance as a regular student, and did not obtain permission
from the employer while participating in the RJS examination
meaning thereby No Objection Certification was not obtained by
her from the State Government. It was also alleged that she
concealed her resignation from government service while joining
as a Civil Judge.
6. Learned counsel for the appellant has vehemently argued
before this Court that so far as the allegation in respect of
completing LL.B. and B.Ed courses together is concerned,
misconduct, if any, was committed by the appellant while serving
the Education Department and not while on probation in the
judicial service, but the Education Department has not taken any
action in the matter and the same cannot be a ground to discharge
her as a Civil Judge. Learned Senior Counsel for the appellant
has also argued before this Court that the appellant at the relevant
point of time when she submitted her application form was no
longer in service in the Education Department of the State of
Rajasthan and on the contrary, she has successfully completed
her probation period without any blemish. Learned Senior
Counsel has further argued that the appellant had resigned from
the government job while joining the Rajasthan Judicial Service
and in case the order is not set aside, she will be rendered jobless.
SLP(C) No. 23529 of 2023 Page 5 of 21
It has also been argued that she is a tribal girl and has proved her
worth by clearing the Rajasthan Judicial Service examination,
hence, no purpose is going to be served by throwing her out
especially when she has completed her training with flying
colours.
7. Learned Senior Counsel has vehemently argued before this
Court that a show cause notice was certainly issued to the
appellant and a detailed inquiry also took place in the matter
which was conducted by the Registrar (Vigilance) and the said
inquiry took place behind the back of the appellant without
appointing a Presenting Officer or without giving any chance to
the appellant to explain before the Inquiry Officer; no effective
hearing was afforded to the appellant nor the inquiry report was
furnished to the appellant.
8. Learned Counsel has placed reliance on Shamsher Singh
Vs. State of Punjab 1974 (2) SCC 831 to contend that the order
discontinuing the services of the appellant is a stigmatic order as
it was based upon an inquiry report holding the appellant guilty
of the alleged misconduct. The order is violative of principles of
natural justice and fair play as well as violative of Article 311 of
the Constitution of India.
9. Learned Senior Counsel has further argued before this
Court that the present case is not a case where the appellant has
SLP(C) No. 23529 of 2023 Page 6 of 21
suppressed material information relating to any criminal
incidents. He has drawn the attention of this Court towards the
application form submitted by the appellant which is on record
and his contention is that on the date the form was submitted by
the appellant, she was not in government service. A prayer has
been made by the appellant for setting aside the order of
discharge as well as the order passed by the High Court of
Rajasthan.
10. The Respondent/High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at
Jodhpur has filed a detailed and exhaustive reply and on oath has
stated that the appellant has pursued B.Ed and LL.B. degree
simultaneously which is not permissible as per the provisions of
Ordinance 168-A and Ordinance 168-B of the Hand Book of
University of Rajasthan and, therefore, the appellant has
misconducted herself. The respondents have admitted the factum
of issuance of advertisement for the post of Civil Judge cadre on
18.11.2017 and have stated that the requirement of obtaining ‘No
Objection Certificate’ (“NOC”) from the employer was a
necessary requirement and the appellant did not obtain an NOC
before joining as a Civil Judge.
11. The respondents have further stated that the appellant
while serving as a Government Teacher has pursued LL.M. from
2015 to 2017 and obtained degree from University of Rajasthan
SLP(C) No. 23529 of 2023 Page 7 of 21
as a regular student without obtaining permission from the
Education Department, and therefore, she has again
misconducted herself.
12. The respondents have stated that a fact finding report was
prepared by the Registrar (Vigilance) after seeking an
explanation from the appellant and the allegations levelled in the
show cause notice were established in the inquiry report. The
respondents have further stated that the appellant has failed to
disclose her earlier status of a government teacher in the
application form and, therefore, the Full Court was justified in
passing a resolution to discontinue her services and consequently,
the order of discharge was issued in the matter.
13. The respondents have placed heavy reliance on Rules 44,
45, and 46 of the Rajasthan Judicial Service Rules, 2010, to
contend that the appellant was a probationer and her probation
period has neither been extended nor has she been confirmed
rightly by the respondents as the Full Court has held that she is
unfit for confirmation. The respondents have also placed reliance
upon Rule 14 of the Rajasthan Judicial Service Rules, 2010,
which deals with “ Employment by irregular or improper means”.
The respondents have further placed reliance on Raj Kumar Vs.
Union of India (1968) 3 SCR 857; Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut
Prasaran Nigam Ltd. Vs. Anil Kanwariya (2021) 10 SCC 136;
SLP(C) No. 23529 of 2023 Page 8 of 21
Hari Singh Mann Vs. State of Punjab AIR 1974 SC 2263; State
of Punjab and another Vs. Sukh Raj Bahadur (1968) 3 SCR
234; and H.F.Sangati Vs. Registrar General, High Court of
Karnataka (2001) 3 SCC 117; Rajesh Kohli Vs. High Court of
Jammu & Kashmir and others (2010) 12 SCC 783; and
Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur Vs. Akashdeep Morya & Anr.
2021 INSC 485 and prayed for dismissal of the writ petition.
14. Heard learned counsel for the parties at length and perused
the case file thoroughly.
15. The undisputed facts of the case reveal that the appellant
belongs to the Scheduled Tribe category and holds a Bachelor
degree in Arts, Bachelor degree in Law, Bachelor degree in
Education and Master’s degree in Law. The appellant started her
service career on 30.12.2014 by joining as a Government Teacher
Grade-II in the Education Department of the Government of
Rajasthan. The advertisement was issued on 18.11.2017 inviting
applications for the Rajasthan Judicial Service Examination –
2017 and the appellant did submit her application in the
prescribed form for the post in question. The appellant was
successful in the preliminary examination and it is noteworthy to
mention here that the appellant was also suffering from
lymphadenopathy tuberculosis during this period. She was
successful in the main examination as well and thereafter, was
SLP(C) No. 23529 of 2023 Page 9 of 21
called for the interview on 09.10.2018. The appellant submitted
her resignation vide letter dated 25.10.2018 from the post of
Grade-II Teacher which was accepted on 28.12.2018. The
appellant, at the time of interview, submitted a check list of
documents provided by the Deputy Registrar (Examination) of
the Rajasthan High Court, on 02.11.2018 and the appellant on the
said date had resigned from her employment and, therefore, she
has not mentioned about her being in government service in the
check list. The final result was declared on 04.11.2018 declaring
the appellant as a successful candidate.
16. Unfortunately, one Mr. Abhishek Verma filed a complaint
against the appellant before the Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur
and this was the triggering factor for the entire action against the
appellant herein. The appellant was appointed as a Civil Judge
and Judicial Magistrate by an order dated 11.02.2019 on
probation for a period of two years and she successfully
completed one year RJS induction training from 06.03.2019 to
07.03.2020. Again, a complaint was filed by one Mr. Ram
Niwash Meena on 22.03.2019 against the appellant before the
High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jodhpur and based
upon the complaint of Mr. Ram Niwash Meena, Registrar
(Vigilance) issued a show cause notice on 17.02.2020. The
appellant did submit her reply to the show cause notice and an
inquiry was held without participation of the appellant; however,
SLP(C) No. 23529 of 2023 Page 10 of 21
the inquiry officer granted a personal hearing to the appellant.
The appellant was not issued any posting order and finally the
Full Court based upon the said inquiry report arrived at a
conclusion to discontinue the appellant from service by holding
that she is not fit for confirmation in the Rajasthan Judicial
Service and finally a discharge order was issued against her on
29.05.2020. Against the discharge order, the appellant filed a writ
petition before the High Court, however, the same was dismissed
which is impugned before this Court.
17. This Court has carefully gone through the show cause
notice dated 17.02.2020 issued to the appellant and a bare perusal
of the same establishes that misconduct, if any, in respect of
obtaining LL.B. and B.Ed degree simultaneously relates to the
service period prior to being a Judicial Officer. Similarly, in
respect of LL.M. degree also, she was not a Judicial Officer and
she was serving as a Teacher Grade-II in the Education
Department of Government of Rajasthan. So far as the allegation
with regarding to suppression of material information regarding
past government service, the appellant submitted resignation on
25.10.2018 from the post of Teacher Grade-II and on the date of
interview i.e. on 02.11.2018, she was required to furnish certain
information as per the check list and it is a fact that on the date
of interview, she was no longer a government servant as she had
tendered her resignation and in those circumstances, there is
SLP(C) No. 23529 of 2023 Page 11 of 21
certainly an omission on the part of the appellant in not
mentioning about her past record of government service.
18. This Court is of the considered opinion that as the
appellant had submitted her resignation on 25.10.2018 much
prior to her interview, which was conducted on 02.11.2018, the
question of disclosing the past government service is certainly
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.
Another important aspect of the case is that the appellant was
suffering from lymphadenopathy tuberculosis since March 2018,
and she was admitted to the hospital on and off and, therefore,
the alleged suppression should not come in her way leading to
discharge from service. This is certainly not a case where the
appellant has suppressed criminal antecedents, which may
materially affect her commitment to the judiciary.
19. The appellant has not submitted an NOC from the
employer and an explanation has rightly been furnished by the
appellant before this Court as well as the Inquiry Officer that at
the relevant point of time when she appeared for the interview
and when the result was declared, she had submitted her
resignation. In the considered opinion of this Court, non-
SLP(C) No. 23529 of 2023 Page 12 of 21
disclosure of past government service cannot be a ground for
discharging the appellant.
20. Rules 44, 45 and 46 of the Rajasthan Judicial Service Rules
reads as under:
“44. Probation. - All persons appointed to the
service in the cadre of Civil Judge and District
Judge by direct recruitment shall be placed on
probation for a period of two years:
Provided that such of them as have previous
to their appointment to the service officiated on
temporary post in the service may be permitted by
the Appointing Authority on the recommendation of
the Court to count such officiation or temporary
service towards the period of probation.
45. Confirmation .- (1) A probationer appointed to
the service in the cadre of Civil Judge shall be
confirmed in his appointment by the Court at the
end of his initial or extended period of probation, if
the Court is satisfied that he is fit for confirmation.
(2) A person appointed to the service in the cadre of
Senior Civil Judge by promotion shall be
substantively appointed by the Court in the cadre as
and when permanent vacancies occur.
(3) A probationer appointed to the service in the
cadre of District Judge by direct recruitment shall
be confirmed in his appointment by the Court at the
end of his initial or extended period of probation, if
the Court is satisfied that he is fit for confirmation.
SLP(C) No. 23529 of 2023 Page 13 of 21
(4) A person appointed to the service in the cadre of
District Judge by promotion on the basis of merit-
cum-seniority or by Limited Competitive
Examination shall be confirmed in his appointment
by the Court on availability of permanent vacancies
in the cadre.
46. Unsatisfactory progress during probation and
extension of probation period .- (1) If it appears to
the Court, at any time, during or at the end of the
period of probation that a member of the service has
not made sufficient use of the opportunities made
available or that he has failed to give satisfactory
performance, the Appointing Authority may, on
recommendations of the Court, discharge him from
service: Provided that the Court may, in special
cases, for reasons to be recorded in writing, extend
the period of probation of any member of the service
for a specified period not exceeding one year.
(2) An order sanctioning such extension of
probation shall specify the exact date up to which
the extension is granted and further specify as to
whether the extended period will be counted for the
purpose of increment.
(3) If the period of probation is extended on account
of failure to give satisfactory service, such extension
shall not count for increments, unless the authority
granting the extension directs otherwise.
(4) If a probationer is discharged from service
during or at the end of the initial or extended period
SLP(C) No. 23529 of 2023 Page 14 of 21
of probation under sub-rule (1), he shall not be
entitled to any claim whatsoever.”
21. Rule 46 deals with unsatisfactory progress during
probation and extension of probation period. The aforesaid
statutory provision of law certainly empowers the employer to
extend the probation period and in case the performance of an
employee during the probation period is unsatisfactory, it also
gives a right to the employer to discharge the probationer. It is
nobody’s case that the performance of the appellant during the
probationary period was unsatisfactory. In fact, she has
successfully completed her training with flying colours and,
therefore, by no stretch of imagination could her services be put
to an end in the manner and method it has been done by the
respondents.
22. The respondents have also placed heavy reliance on Rule
14 of the Rajasthan Judicial Service Rules, 2010, which reads as
under:
“14. Employment by irregular or improper
means .- A candidate who is or has been declared by
the Recruiting Authority or the Appointing
Authority, as the case may be, guilty of
impersonation or of submitting fabricated or
tampered with documents or of making statements
which are incorrect or false or of suppressing
material information or using or attempting to use
SLP(C) No. 23529 of 2023 Page 15 of 21
unfair means in the examination or interview or
otherwise resorting to any other irregular or
improper means for obtaining admission to the
examination or appearance at any interview shall,
in addition to rendering himself liable to criminal
prosecution, be debarred either permanently or for
a specified period,-
(a) by the Recruiting Authority or the Appointing
Authority, as the case may be, from admission to any
examination or appearing at any interview held by
the Recruiting Authority for selection of candidates,
or
(b) by the Government from employment under
the Government.”
23. This Court has carefully gone through the aforementioned
statutory provision of law which deals with employment by
irregular or improper means. In the present case, at the best, it
can be held that there was an omission on the part of the appellant
in informing the employer about her past government service.
Further, a reasonable explanation has also been provided by the
appellant regarding her past government service by stating that at
the time of submission of check list, the appellant was not in
government service and, therefore, in those circumstance, she
was not required to mention the same. In the considered opinion
of this Court, the appellant has been awarded capital punishment
for a minor irregularity (omission).
SLP(C) No. 23529 of 2023 Page 16 of 21
24 The services of a probationer could result either in a
confirmation in the post or ended by way of termination
simpliciter . However, if a probationer is terminated from service
owing to a misconduct as a punishment, the termination would
cause a stigma on him. If a probationer is unsuitable for a job and
has been terminated then such a case is non-stigmatic as it is a
termination simpliciter . Thus, the performance of a probationer
has to be considered in order to ascertain whether it has been
satisfactory or unsatisfactory. If the performance of a probationer
has been unsatisfactory, he is liable to be terminated by the
employer without conducting any inquiry. No right of hearing is
also reserved with the probationer and hence, there would be no
violation of principles of natural justice in such a case.
25. As noted, if a termination from service is not visited with
any stigma and neither are there any civil consequences and nor
is founded on misconduct, then, it would be a case of termination
simpliciter . On the other hand, an assessment of remarks
pertaining to the discharge of duties during the probationary
period even without a finding of misconduct and termination on
the basis of such remarks or assessment will be by way of
punishment because such remarks or assessment would be
stigmatic. According to the dictionary meaning, stigma is
indicative of a blemish, disgrace indicating a deviation from a
norm. Stigma might be inferred from the references quoted in the
SLP(C) No. 23529 of 2023 Page 17 of 21
termination order although the order itself might not contain
anything offensive. Where there is a discharge from service after
prescribed probation period was completed and the discharge
order contain allegations against a probationer and surrounding
circumstances also showed that discharge was not based solely
on the assessment of the employee’s work and conduct during
probation, the termination was held to be stigmatic and punitive
vide Jaswantsingh Pratapsingh Jadeja vs. Rajkot Municipal
Corporation, (2007) 10 SCC 71.
26. Even though a probationer has no right to hold a post, it
would not imply that the mandate of Articles 14 and 16 of the
Constitution could be violated inasmuch as there cannot be any
arbitrary or discriminatory discharge or an absence of application
of mind in the matter of assessment of performance and
consideration of relevant materials. Thus, in deciding whether, in
a given case, a termination was by way of punishment or not, the
courts have to look into the substance of the matter and not the
form.
27. Further, the order discharging the appellant from service
violates principles of natural justice, as the appellant was not
provided an opportunity to be heard during the enquiry that was
required to be conducted. At this juncture, reliance is placed on
SLP(C) No. 23529 of 2023 Page 18 of 21
Shamsher Singh v. State of Punjab (1974) 2 SCC 831 , which
clarified that:
“No abstract proposition can be laid down that
where the services of a probationer are terminated
without saying anything more in the order of
termination than that the services are terminated it
can never amount to a punishment in the facts and
circumstances of the case. If a probationer is
discharged on the ground of misconduct, or
inefficiency or for similar reason without a proper
enquiry and without his getting a reasonable
opportunity of showing cause against his discharge
it may in a given case amount of removal from
service within the meaning of Art. 311 (2) of the
Constitution.”
28. To holistically understand women’s effective participation
in the Judiciary, it is important to look at three main phenomena:
(I) the entry of women into the legal profession; (II) the retention
of women and growth of their numbers in the profession; and (III)
the advancement of women, in numbers, to senior echelons of the
profession.
29. Many have stressed that increased diversity within a
judiciary, and ensuring judges are representative of society,
enables the judiciary as a whole to better respond to diverse social
and individual contexts and experiences. It is a recognition of this
fact that a greater representation of women in the judiciary, would
greatly improve the overall quality of judicial decision making
SLP(C) No. 23529 of 2023 Page 19 of 21
and this impacts generally and also specifically in cases affecting
women.
30. Advancing women’s greater participation in the judiciary
also plays a role in promoting gender equality in broader ways:
a. Female judicial appointments, particularly at
senior levels, can shift gender stereotypes,
thereby changing attitudes and perceptions as
to appropriate roles of men and women.
b. Women’s visibility as judicial officers can pave
the way for women’s greater representation in
other decision-making positions, such as in
legislative and executive branches of
government.
c. Higher numbers, and greater visibility, of
women judges can increase the willingness of
women to seek justice and enforce their rights
through the courts.
31. The country will greatly benefit from a judicial force that
is competent, committed and most importantly, diverse. The
appellant has shown great perseverance by fighting societal
stigmas and gaining a rich education that will ultimately benefit
the judicial system and the democratic project. This Court is of
the opinion in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case
that the impugned show cause notice as well as the order of
discharge deserve to be set aside and are accordingly set aside.
SLP(C) No. 23529 of 2023 Page 20 of 21
32. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed and the show cause
notice dated 17.02.2020 and the discharge order dated
29.05.2020 are quashed. The appellant shall be entitled to
reinstatement in service forthwith with all consequential benefits,
including, fixation of seniority as per the merit list in the
examination in question, notional fixation of pay, except back
wages. It is further clarified that the respondent shall treat the
appellant as to have successfully completed her probation period
and the appellant shall be treated as a confirmed employee.
33. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
……………………………………J.
[B.V. NAGARATHNA]
……………………………………J.
[SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA]
NEW DELHI
May 22, 2025.
SLP(C) No. 23529 of 2023 Page 21 of 21
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. OF 2025
[Arising out of SLP (C) No. 23529 of 2023]
PINKY MEENA …APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
THE HIGH COURT OF
JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
AT JODHPUR & ANR.
…RESPONDENT(S)
J U D G M E N T
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
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
NEETU SACHDEVA
Date: 2025.05.22
15:45:22 IST
Reason:
SLP(C) No. 23529 of 2023 Page 1 of 21
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 of Arts, Bachelor of
Education, Bachelor of Laws and Masters in Law, and was
serving as Teacher Grade–II in the Education Department,
Government of Rajasthan with effect from 30.12.2014. The facts
further reveal that an advertisement was issued by the High Court
inviting applications for the post of Civil Judge and Judicial
Magistrate on 18.11.2017. Pursuant to her application for the post
of Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate, she was selected for the
post in question. The appointment order was issued on
11.02.2019 and the appellant joined as a trainee RJS on
06.03.2019, and completed her training successfully on
07.03.2020. Vide order dated 06.03.2020, the appellant was kept
under Awaiting Posting Order (“APO”) and later her headquarter
was changed vide order dated 23.03.2020 from Jodhpur to
District and Sessions Judge, Jaipur Metro. A notice was issued to
her on 17.02.2020 directing her to furnish a pointwise
explanation to certain queries raised by the High Court and a
reply was submitted by her on 02.03.2020. The show cause notice
was issued under Rule 16 of Rajasthan Civil Services
(Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958 and an Inquiry
Report was also submitted in the matter. The Inquiry Report was
SLP(C) No. 23529 of 2023 Page 2 of 21
placed before the Full Court of the High Court, and the Full Court
arrived at a conclusion not to continue the appellant in service as
she was a probationer and no certificate in respect of completion
of probation period was issued by the High Court. The appellant
being aggrieved by the order discharging her from service dated
29.05.2020 preferred a writ petition before the High Court and
the High Court has dismissed the same.
4. The show cause notice issued by the respondent sought
explanation from the appellant on five counts which are detailed
as under:
“a) While studying in LL.B. first year, the
petitioner also obtained degree of B.Ed. in the same
year, thus fraudulently succeeding in showing
attendance in both the courses. The contention of
the petitioner is that she did not obtain the degree
of LL.B and B.Ed. in the same year. As per the
Ordinance No.168A of the Ordinance Handbook of
Rajasthan University, a candidate cannot appear in
two main examinations in the same year. As per the
petitioner, LL.B First Year Examination is not main
examination for obtaining the degree of LL.B.
b) The petitioner while being in Government job
as a Teacher did her LL.M. and again fraudulently
succeeded in showing attendance in both the
courses. The petitioner has given the explanation
that she did not show her attendance fraudulently at
SLP(C) No. 23529 of 2023 Page 3 of 21
two places simultaneously because generally no
regular classes are held for LL.M. in the University.
c) The petitioner concealed the fact of her
employment in Government job as a Teacher in the
checklist submitted at the time of interview of RJS.
To this the petitioner has given her explanation to
the effect that, there were no columns in Checklist
for Interview wherein she was required to say that
she was employed in Government service. The
petitioner submitted that she had filled her checklist
on 02.11.2018, whereas the petitioner submitted her
resignation from the government service on
25-10-2018 and had stopped reporting to service.
d) The petitioner did not obtain any permission
or ‘No Objection Certificate’ from the Education
Department for appearing in the RJS Examination.
To this the petitioner has given explanation that
there is no provision in RJS Rules to obtain prior
permission from the employer for appearing in RJS
examination.
e) The petitioner upon selection in RJS
concealed this information from the High Court as
well as from Education Department and joined the
judicial services after resignation on medical
grounds. To this the petitioner has explained that as
on the date of joining RJS, the petitioner was not in
Government service, therefore, no information was
required to be furnished by the petitioner.”
5. The aforesaid allegations reveal that the appellant while in
service of the Education Department of the State of Rajasthan
SLP(C) No. 23529 of 2023 Page 4 of 21
obtained LL.B. and B.Ed degree in the same year, obtained
LL.M. degree while being in service as a teacher showing her
attendance as a regular student, and did not obtain permission
from the employer while participating in the RJS examination
meaning thereby No Objection Certification was not obtained by
her from the State Government. It was also alleged that she
concealed her resignation from government service while joining
as a Civil Judge.
6. Learned counsel for the appellant has vehemently argued
before this Court that so far as the allegation in respect of
completing LL.B. and B.Ed courses together is concerned,
misconduct, if any, was committed by the appellant while serving
the Education Department and not while on probation in the
judicial service, but the Education Department has not taken any
action in the matter and the same cannot be a ground to discharge
her as a Civil Judge. Learned Senior Counsel for the appellant
has also argued before this Court that the appellant at the relevant
point of time when she submitted her application form was no
longer in service in the Education Department of the State of
Rajasthan and on the contrary, she has successfully completed
her probation period without any blemish. Learned Senior
Counsel has further argued that the appellant had resigned from
the government job while joining the Rajasthan Judicial Service
and in case the order is not set aside, she will be rendered jobless.
SLP(C) No. 23529 of 2023 Page 5 of 21
It has also been argued that she is a tribal girl and has proved her
worth by clearing the Rajasthan Judicial Service examination,
hence, no purpose is going to be served by throwing her out
especially when she has completed her training with flying
colours.
7. Learned Senior Counsel has vehemently argued before this
Court that a show cause notice was certainly issued to the
appellant and a detailed inquiry also took place in the matter
which was conducted by the Registrar (Vigilance) and the said
inquiry took place behind the back of the appellant without
appointing a Presenting Officer or without giving any chance to
the appellant to explain before the Inquiry Officer; no effective
hearing was afforded to the appellant nor the inquiry report was
furnished to the appellant.
8. Learned Counsel has placed reliance on Shamsher Singh
Vs. State of Punjab 1974 (2) SCC 831 to contend that the order
discontinuing the services of the appellant is a stigmatic order as
it was based upon an inquiry report holding the appellant guilty
of the alleged misconduct. The order is violative of principles of
natural justice and fair play as well as violative of Article 311 of
the Constitution of India.
9. Learned Senior Counsel has further argued before this
Court that the present case is not a case where the appellant has
SLP(C) No. 23529 of 2023 Page 6 of 21
suppressed material information relating to any criminal
incidents. He has drawn the attention of this Court towards the
application form submitted by the appellant which is on record
and his contention is that on the date the form was submitted by
the appellant, she was not in government service. A prayer has
been made by the appellant for setting aside the order of
discharge as well as the order passed by the High Court of
Rajasthan.
10. The Respondent/High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at
Jodhpur has filed a detailed and exhaustive reply and on oath has
stated that the appellant has pursued B.Ed and LL.B. degree
simultaneously which is not permissible as per the provisions of
Ordinance 168-A and Ordinance 168-B of the Hand Book of
University of Rajasthan and, therefore, the appellant has
misconducted herself. The respondents have admitted the factum
of issuance of advertisement for the post of Civil Judge cadre on
18.11.2017 and have stated that the requirement of obtaining ‘No
Objection Certificate’ (“NOC”) from the employer was a
necessary requirement and the appellant did not obtain an NOC
before joining as a Civil Judge.
11. The respondents have further stated that the appellant
while serving as a Government Teacher has pursued LL.M. from
2015 to 2017 and obtained degree from University of Rajasthan
SLP(C) No. 23529 of 2023 Page 7 of 21
as a regular student without obtaining permission from the
Education Department, and therefore, she has again
misconducted herself.
12. The respondents have stated that a fact finding report was
prepared by the Registrar (Vigilance) after seeking an
explanation from the appellant and the allegations levelled in the
show cause notice were established in the inquiry report. The
respondents have further stated that the appellant has failed to
disclose her earlier status of a government teacher in the
application form and, therefore, the Full Court was justified in
passing a resolution to discontinue her services and consequently,
the order of discharge was issued in the matter.
13. The respondents have placed heavy reliance on Rules 44,
45, and 46 of the Rajasthan Judicial Service Rules, 2010, to
contend that the appellant was a probationer and her probation
period has neither been extended nor has she been confirmed
rightly by the respondents as the Full Court has held that she is
unfit for confirmation. The respondents have also placed reliance
upon Rule 14 of the Rajasthan Judicial Service Rules, 2010,
which deals with “ Employment by irregular or improper means”.
The respondents have further placed reliance on Raj Kumar Vs.
Union of India (1968) 3 SCR 857; Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut
Prasaran Nigam Ltd. Vs. Anil Kanwariya (2021) 10 SCC 136;
SLP(C) No. 23529 of 2023 Page 8 of 21
Hari Singh Mann Vs. State of Punjab AIR 1974 SC 2263; State
of Punjab and another Vs. Sukh Raj Bahadur (1968) 3 SCR
234; and H.F.Sangati Vs. Registrar General, High Court of
Karnataka (2001) 3 SCC 117; Rajesh Kohli Vs. High Court of
Jammu & Kashmir and others (2010) 12 SCC 783; and
Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur Vs. Akashdeep Morya & Anr.
2021 INSC 485 and prayed for dismissal of the writ petition.
14. Heard learned counsel for the parties at length and perused
the case file thoroughly.
15. The undisputed facts of the case reveal that the appellant
belongs to the Scheduled Tribe category and holds a Bachelor
degree in Arts, Bachelor degree in Law, Bachelor degree in
Education and Master’s degree in Law. The appellant started her
service career on 30.12.2014 by joining as a Government Teacher
Grade-II in the Education Department of the Government of
Rajasthan. The advertisement was issued on 18.11.2017 inviting
applications for the Rajasthan Judicial Service Examination –
2017 and the appellant did submit her application in the
prescribed form for the post in question. The appellant was
successful in the preliminary examination and it is noteworthy to
mention here that the appellant was also suffering from
lymphadenopathy tuberculosis during this period. She was
successful in the main examination as well and thereafter, was
SLP(C) No. 23529 of 2023 Page 9 of 21
called for the interview on 09.10.2018. The appellant submitted
her resignation vide letter dated 25.10.2018 from the post of
Grade-II Teacher which was accepted on 28.12.2018. The
appellant, at the time of interview, submitted a check list of
documents provided by the Deputy Registrar (Examination) of
the Rajasthan High Court, on 02.11.2018 and the appellant on the
said date had resigned from her employment and, therefore, she
has not mentioned about her being in government service in the
check list. The final result was declared on 04.11.2018 declaring
the appellant as a successful candidate.
16. Unfortunately, one Mr. Abhishek Verma filed a complaint
against the appellant before the Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur
and this was the triggering factor for the entire action against the
appellant herein. The appellant was appointed as a Civil Judge
and Judicial Magistrate by an order dated 11.02.2019 on
probation for a period of two years and she successfully
completed one year RJS induction training from 06.03.2019 to
07.03.2020. Again, a complaint was filed by one Mr. Ram
Niwash Meena on 22.03.2019 against the appellant before the
High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jodhpur and based
upon the complaint of Mr. Ram Niwash Meena, Registrar
(Vigilance) issued a show cause notice on 17.02.2020. The
appellant did submit her reply to the show cause notice and an
inquiry was held without participation of the appellant; however,
SLP(C) No. 23529 of 2023 Page 10 of 21
the inquiry officer granted a personal hearing to the appellant.
The appellant was not issued any posting order and finally the
Full Court based upon the said inquiry report arrived at a
conclusion to discontinue the appellant from service by holding
that she is not fit for confirmation in the Rajasthan Judicial
Service and finally a discharge order was issued against her on
29.05.2020. Against the discharge order, the appellant filed a writ
petition before the High Court, however, the same was dismissed
which is impugned before this Court.
17. This Court has carefully gone through the show cause
notice dated 17.02.2020 issued to the appellant and a bare perusal
of the same establishes that misconduct, if any, in respect of
obtaining LL.B. and B.Ed degree simultaneously relates to the
service period prior to being a Judicial Officer. Similarly, in
respect of LL.M. degree also, she was not a Judicial Officer and
she was serving as a Teacher Grade-II in the Education
Department of Government of Rajasthan. So far as the allegation
with regarding to suppression of material information regarding
past government service, the appellant submitted resignation on
25.10.2018 from the post of Teacher Grade-II and on the date of
interview i.e. on 02.11.2018, she was required to furnish certain
information as per the check list and it is a fact that on the date
of interview, she was no longer a government servant as she had
tendered her resignation and in those circumstances, there is
SLP(C) No. 23529 of 2023 Page 11 of 21
certainly an omission on the part of the appellant in not
mentioning about her past record of government service.
18. This Court is of the considered opinion that as the
appellant had submitted her resignation on 25.10.2018 much
prior to her interview, which was conducted on 02.11.2018, the
question of disclosing the past government service is certainly
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.
Another important aspect of the case is that the appellant was
suffering from lymphadenopathy tuberculosis since March 2018,
and she was admitted to the hospital on and off and, therefore,
the alleged suppression should not come in her way leading to
discharge from service. This is certainly not a case where the
appellant has suppressed criminal antecedents, which may
materially affect her commitment to the judiciary.
19. The appellant has not submitted an NOC from the
employer and an explanation has rightly been furnished by the
appellant before this Court as well as the Inquiry Officer that at
the relevant point of time when she appeared for the interview
and when the result was declared, she had submitted her
resignation. In the considered opinion of this Court, non-
SLP(C) No. 23529 of 2023 Page 12 of 21
disclosure of past government service cannot be a ground for
discharging the appellant.
20. Rules 44, 45 and 46 of the Rajasthan Judicial Service Rules
reads as under:
“44. Probation. - All persons appointed to the
service in the cadre of Civil Judge and District
Judge by direct recruitment shall be placed on
probation for a period of two years:
Provided that such of them as have previous
to their appointment to the service officiated on
temporary post in the service may be permitted by
the Appointing Authority on the recommendation of
the Court to count such officiation or temporary
service towards the period of probation.
45. Confirmation .- (1) A probationer appointed to
the service in the cadre of Civil Judge shall be
confirmed in his appointment by the Court at the
end of his initial or extended period of probation, if
the Court is satisfied that he is fit for confirmation.
(2) A person appointed to the service in the cadre of
Senior Civil Judge by promotion shall be
substantively appointed by the Court in the cadre as
and when permanent vacancies occur.
(3) A probationer appointed to the service in the
cadre of District Judge by direct recruitment shall
be confirmed in his appointment by the Court at the
end of his initial or extended period of probation, if
the Court is satisfied that he is fit for confirmation.
SLP(C) No. 23529 of 2023 Page 13 of 21
(4) A person appointed to the service in the cadre of
District Judge by promotion on the basis of merit-
cum-seniority or by Limited Competitive
Examination shall be confirmed in his appointment
by the Court on availability of permanent vacancies
in the cadre.
46. Unsatisfactory progress during probation and
extension of probation period .- (1) If it appears to
the Court, at any time, during or at the end of the
period of probation that a member of the service has
not made sufficient use of the opportunities made
available or that he has failed to give satisfactory
performance, the Appointing Authority may, on
recommendations of the Court, discharge him from
service: Provided that the Court may, in special
cases, for reasons to be recorded in writing, extend
the period of probation of any member of the service
for a specified period not exceeding one year.
(2) An order sanctioning such extension of
probation shall specify the exact date up to which
the extension is granted and further specify as to
whether the extended period will be counted for the
purpose of increment.
(3) If the period of probation is extended on account
of failure to give satisfactory service, such extension
shall not count for increments, unless the authority
granting the extension directs otherwise.
(4) If a probationer is discharged from service
during or at the end of the initial or extended period
SLP(C) No. 23529 of 2023 Page 14 of 21
of probation under sub-rule (1), he shall not be
entitled to any claim whatsoever.”
21. Rule 46 deals with unsatisfactory progress during
probation and extension of probation period. The aforesaid
statutory provision of law certainly empowers the employer to
extend the probation period and in case the performance of an
employee during the probation period is unsatisfactory, it also
gives a right to the employer to discharge the probationer. It is
nobody’s case that the performance of the appellant during the
probationary period was unsatisfactory. In fact, she has
successfully completed her training with flying colours and,
therefore, by no stretch of imagination could her services be put
to an end in the manner and method it has been done by the
respondents.
22. The respondents have also placed heavy reliance on Rule
14 of the Rajasthan Judicial Service Rules, 2010, which reads as
under:
“14. Employment by irregular or improper
means .- A candidate who is or has been declared by
the Recruiting Authority or the Appointing
Authority, as the case may be, guilty of
impersonation or of submitting fabricated or
tampered with documents or of making statements
which are incorrect or false or of suppressing
material information or using or attempting to use
SLP(C) No. 23529 of 2023 Page 15 of 21
unfair means in the examination or interview or
otherwise resorting to any other irregular or
improper means for obtaining admission to the
examination or appearance at any interview shall,
in addition to rendering himself liable to criminal
prosecution, be debarred either permanently or for
a specified period,-
(a) by the Recruiting Authority or the Appointing
Authority, as the case may be, from admission to any
examination or appearing at any interview held by
the Recruiting Authority for selection of candidates,
or
(b) by the Government from employment under
the Government.”
23. This Court has carefully gone through the aforementioned
statutory provision of law which deals with employment by
irregular or improper means. In the present case, at the best, it
can be held that there was an omission on the part of the appellant
in informing the employer about her past government service.
Further, a reasonable explanation has also been provided by the
appellant regarding her past government service by stating that at
the time of submission of check list, the appellant was not in
government service and, therefore, in those circumstance, she
was not required to mention the same. In the considered opinion
of this Court, the appellant has been awarded capital punishment
for a minor irregularity (omission).
SLP(C) No. 23529 of 2023 Page 16 of 21
24 The services of a probationer could result either in a
confirmation in the post or ended by way of termination
simpliciter . However, if a probationer is terminated from service
owing to a misconduct as a punishment, the termination would
cause a stigma on him. If a probationer is unsuitable for a job and
has been terminated then such a case is non-stigmatic as it is a
termination simpliciter . Thus, the performance of a probationer
has to be considered in order to ascertain whether it has been
satisfactory or unsatisfactory. If the performance of a probationer
has been unsatisfactory, he is liable to be terminated by the
employer without conducting any inquiry. No right of hearing is
also reserved with the probationer and hence, there would be no
violation of principles of natural justice in such a case.
25. As noted, if a termination from service is not visited with
any stigma and neither are there any civil consequences and nor
is founded on misconduct, then, it would be a case of termination
simpliciter . On the other hand, an assessment of remarks
pertaining to the discharge of duties during the probationary
period even without a finding of misconduct and termination on
the basis of such remarks or assessment will be by way of
punishment because such remarks or assessment would be
stigmatic. According to the dictionary meaning, stigma is
indicative of a blemish, disgrace indicating a deviation from a
norm. Stigma might be inferred from the references quoted in the
SLP(C) No. 23529 of 2023 Page 17 of 21
termination order although the order itself might not contain
anything offensive. Where there is a discharge from service after
prescribed probation period was completed and the discharge
order contain allegations against a probationer and surrounding
circumstances also showed that discharge was not based solely
on the assessment of the employee’s work and conduct during
probation, the termination was held to be stigmatic and punitive
vide Jaswantsingh Pratapsingh Jadeja vs. Rajkot Municipal
Corporation, (2007) 10 SCC 71.
26. Even though a probationer has no right to hold a post, it
would not imply that the mandate of Articles 14 and 16 of the
Constitution could be violated inasmuch as there cannot be any
arbitrary or discriminatory discharge or an absence of application
of mind in the matter of assessment of performance and
consideration of relevant materials. Thus, in deciding whether, in
a given case, a termination was by way of punishment or not, the
courts have to look into the substance of the matter and not the
form.
27. Further, the order discharging the appellant from service
violates principles of natural justice, as the appellant was not
provided an opportunity to be heard during the enquiry that was
required to be conducted. At this juncture, reliance is placed on
SLP(C) No. 23529 of 2023 Page 18 of 21
Shamsher Singh v. State of Punjab (1974) 2 SCC 831 , which
clarified that:
“No abstract proposition can be laid down that
where the services of a probationer are terminated
without saying anything more in the order of
termination than that the services are terminated it
can never amount to a punishment in the facts and
circumstances of the case. If a probationer is
discharged on the ground of misconduct, or
inefficiency or for similar reason without a proper
enquiry and without his getting a reasonable
opportunity of showing cause against his discharge
it may in a given case amount of removal from
service within the meaning of Art. 311 (2) of the
Constitution.”
28. To holistically understand women’s effective participation
in the Judiciary, it is important to look at three main phenomena:
(I) the entry of women into the legal profession; (II) the retention
of women and growth of their numbers in the profession; and (III)
the advancement of women, in numbers, to senior echelons of the
profession.
29. Many have stressed that increased diversity within a
judiciary, and ensuring judges are representative of society,
enables the judiciary as a whole to better respond to diverse social
and individual contexts and experiences. It is a recognition of this
fact that a greater representation of women in the judiciary, would
greatly improve the overall quality of judicial decision making
SLP(C) No. 23529 of 2023 Page 19 of 21
and this impacts generally and also specifically in cases affecting
women.
30. Advancing women’s greater participation in the judiciary
also plays a role in promoting gender equality in broader ways:
a. Female judicial appointments, particularly at
senior levels, can shift gender stereotypes,
thereby changing attitudes and perceptions as
to appropriate roles of men and women.
b. Women’s visibility as judicial officers can pave
the way for women’s greater representation in
other decision-making positions, such as in
legislative and executive branches of
government.
c. Higher numbers, and greater visibility, of
women judges can increase the willingness of
women to seek justice and enforce their rights
through the courts.
31. The country will greatly benefit from a judicial force that
is competent, committed and most importantly, diverse. The
appellant has shown great perseverance by fighting societal
stigmas and gaining a rich education that will ultimately benefit
the judicial system and the democratic project. This Court is of
the opinion in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case
that the impugned show cause notice as well as the order of
discharge deserve to be set aside and are accordingly set aside.
SLP(C) No. 23529 of 2023 Page 20 of 21
32. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed and the show cause
notice dated 17.02.2020 and the discharge order dated
29.05.2020 are quashed. The appellant shall be entitled to
reinstatement in service forthwith with all consequential benefits,
including, fixation of seniority as per the merit list in the
examination in question, notional fixation of pay, except back
wages. It is further clarified that the respondent shall treat the
appellant as to have successfully completed her probation period
and the appellant shall be treated as a confirmed employee.
33. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
……………………………………J.
[B.V. NAGARATHNA]
……………………………………J.
[SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA]
NEW DELHI
May 22, 2025.
SLP(C) No. 23529 of 2023 Page 21 of 21