Dismissed¶30

Shyam Lal S/O Shri Mota Ram v. Honble Chief Minister

Rajasthan HC13 Nov 2025SAW/1316/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Rajasthan High Court Jaipur DB Special Appeal Writ SAW-1316/2025 dismissed; challenge to RAS Exam 2008 appointments of respondents 5-10 via RTI information found not made out; RPSC not obliged to furnish entire examination details; merit numbers mentioned; cost of Rs.1,00,000/- imposed by learned Single Judge on petitioner set aside as excessive; no notice issued to respondents; appellant Shyam Lal argued in person; bench: Acting CJ Sanjeev Prakash Sharma and Justice Baljinder Singh Sandhu; decision dated 13/11/2025.

What did the court decide?

Appeal dismissed; however, the cost of Rs.1,00,000/- imposed by the learned Single Judge is set aside without issuing notice to the respondents. ¶30

Shyam Lal S/O Shri Mota Ram Vs Honble Chief Minister — Rajasthan HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Appeal dismissed; however, the cost of Rs.1,00,000/- imposed by the learned Single Judge is set aside without issuing notice to the respondents.

¶30

Issue for consideration

Whether the appointments of respondent Nos. 5 to 10, selected through RAS Exam, 2008, can be challenged as fraudulent on the basis of RTI information showing that optional subjects were not mentioned in their examination forms. +1 more

¶24

Court's answer

On the basis of the information received under the RTI Act, the claim challenging the appointment of respondent Nos. 5 to 10 is not made out.

¶28

Ratio / Principle

All respondents' merit numbers have been mentioned, and it is not necessary that the entire details of the examination should be handed over by the RPSC to the concerned government authorities.

¶28

Key takeaways

The writ petition was not wholly frivolous so as to justify imposition of a cost of Rs.1,00,000/-.ratio¶29
Notice to the respondents was not required, and the cost imposed by the learned Single Judge is set aside.ratio¶29

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

D.B. Special Appeal (Writ) No. 1316/2025, High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan, Bench at Jaipur (Acting Chief Justice Sanjeev Prakash Sharma and Justice Baljinder Singh Sandhu), decided 13/11/2025. The appellant, appearing in person, had challenged the appointments of respondent Nos. 5 to 10 (officers selected through RAS Exam, 2008) alleging, on the basis of information obtained under the Right to Information Act, that optional subjects were not mentioned in many candidates' examination forms, indicating fraud in the examination. The learned Single Judge had dismissed the writ petition as frivolous and imposed a cost of Rs.1,00,000/- on the petitioner. The Division Bench held that on the basis of the RTI information the claim challenging the appointments was not made out, that all respondents' merit numbers had been mentioned, and that it was not necessary for the RPSC to hand over the entire details of the examination to the government authorities. While finding the claim untenable, the Bench held the petition was not wholly frivolous so as to warrant the cost, declined to issue notice to the respondents, set aside the Rs.1,00,000/- cost imposed by the learned Single Judge, and dismissed the appeal.

¶1

[2025:RJ-JP:45637-DB]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 1316/2025

¶4

Shyam Lal S/o Shri Mota Ram, Aged About 47 Years, Presently Residing 7/98, Malviya Nagar, Jaipur, Rajasthan.

¶5

----Appellant

¶6

Versus

¶7

Honble Chief Minister, Government Secretariat, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur, Rajasthan.

¶8

Chief Secretary, Government Secretariat, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur, Rajasthan.

¶9

Principal Secretary, Department Of Personnel, Government Secretariat, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur, Rajasthan.

¶10

Secretary, Rajasthan Public Services Commission, Ajmer, Rajasthan.

¶11

Shri Naresh Bunkar, At Present Posting Additional Collector And Additional District Magistrate, Rajsamand, Rajasthan Through Principal Secretary, Department Of Personnel Government Secretariat, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.

¶12

Smt. Beena Mahawar, At Present Posting Additional Collector And Additional District Magistrate (City), Alwar, Rajasthan Through Principal Secretary, Department Of Personnel Government Secretariat, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.

¶13

Smt. Suman Panwar, At Present Posting Additional Director Disablities, Jaipur Through Principal Secretary, Department Of Personnel, Government Secretariat, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.

¶14

Smt. Anupam Kayal, At Present Posting General Manager Ganganagar Sugar Mills Limited, Jaipur Through Principal Secretary, Department Of Personnel, Government Secretariat, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.

¶15

Ms. Vandana Khorwal, At Present Posting Deputy Inspector General, Registration And Stamps (Vigilance), Ajmer Through Principal Secretary, Department Of Personnel, Government Secretariat, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.

¶16

(2 of 3) [SAW-1316/2025]

¶17

[2025:RJ-JP:45637-DB]

¶18

Shri Ramchandra, At Present Posting Additional Commissioner (Admn.) Excise Department, Jodhpur Through Principal Secretary, Department Of Personnel, Government Secretariat, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.

¶19

----Respondents

¶20

For Appellant(s) : Mr. Shyam Lal, appellant in person.

¶21

HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MR. SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BALJINDER SINGH SANDHU

¶22

Order

¶23

13/11/2025

¶24

The appellant, who is present in person, submits that he had filed a writ petition challenging the appointment of respondent Nos.5 to 10 on the ground that the information, which he has received under the Right to Information Act, reflects that in most of their cases, there was no mentioning in the form of the subjects which they had chosen for the main examination in RAS Exam, 2008. The presumption, therefore, needs to be drawn that such persons did not even appear in the examination. He further submits that while in other cases, the optional subjects have been mentioned in the form and some persons have been selected without even participating as their optional subjects are not mentioned, the entire examination is fraudulent. He submits that he had raised these arguments before the learned Single Judge, who has however, termed the petition to be frivolous and imposed a cost of Rs.1,00,000/- on the petitioner. 2. We find that on the basis of the information received under RTI Act, the claim for challenging the appointment is not made

¶25

(3 of 3)

¶26

[2025:RJ-JP:45637-DB]

¶27

[SAW-1316/2025]

¶28

out. More so, admittedly, all respondents’ merit numbers have been mentioned and it is not necessary that the entire details of the examination should be handed over by the RPSC to the concerned government authorities.

¶29

We, at the same time, do not find that the writ petition was wholly frivolous to impose cost of Rs.1,00,000/-, but at the same time, we need not issue notice to the respondents and set aside the cost imposed by the learned Single Judge.

¶30

Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.

¶31

(BALJINDER SINGH SANDHU),J (SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA),ACTING CJ

¶32

SANJAY KUMAWAT/RAJAT/39

Shyam Lal S/O Shri Mota Ram v. Honble Chief Minister

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shyam Lal S/O Shri Mota Ram v. Honble Chief Minister

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dr. Supriya Kumari Gupta D/O Shri Raju Lal Gupta Vs State of Rajasthan

State of Rajasthan Vs Kailash Chandra Jakhar S/O Govardhan Lal Jakhar

State of Rajasthan Vs Lakhan Singh Jat Son of Shri Charan Singh Jat

The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Central) Vs Mohd. Akil Khan

Ranjeet Singh Meena S/O Neta Ram Meena Vs Ramraj Meena

Iserv Financial and Marketing Services Vs Income Tax Officer (Ito) Wd 1(2)