The petitioner sought correction of her date of birth in service records and reinstatement. The Court held that disputed questions of fact regarding date of birth cannot be adjudicated under Article 226. The petition was dismissed, leaving the petitioner free to approach a competent court of law.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
[2025:RJ-JP:11178]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3564/2012
Jagdishi Devi wife of Late Shri Radhe Shaym Sharma, aged about 56 years, Resident of Village and post Jawanpura, Tehsil Viratnagar District Jaipur
----Petitioner
Versus
1.The State of Rajasthan through Director, Bal Vikas Pariyogna Samaykit Bal Vikas, Gandhi Nagar, Jaipur
----Respondent
| For Petitioner(s) | : Mr. JagMohan Pareek |
|---|---|
| For Respondent(s) | : Mr. Ajay Verma for |
| Mr.Akash Gaur-Dy.G.C. |
JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND
Order
11/03/2025
[2025:RJ-JP:11178]
[CW-3564/2012]
(2 of 2)
(ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J
Ashu/51
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court can adjudicate disputed facts regarding the correctness of the date of birth in service records under Article 226?
Whether the petitioner is entitled to reinstatement and correction of service records after retirement?
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Jagdishi Devi
The State of Rajasthan through Director, Bal Vikas Pariyogna
Bal Vikas Pariyogna Adhikari
Anoop Kumar Dhand
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
