Compliance application arising from writ petitions concerning fraudulent appointment to PTI Grade-III posts in Dausa. The Court found its earlier directions had been complied with, subsequent terminations were set aside and attained finality, and dismissed the petitioners' applications.
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.
[2026:RJ-JP:7430]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1102/2004
----Petitioners
Versus
[2026:RJ-JP:7430]
[CW-1102/2004]
(2 of 9)
Road,Dausa.
----Respondents
Connected With
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9208/2002
----Petitioners
Versus
(3 of 9) [CW-1102/2004]
[2026:RJ-JP:7430]
Bikaner.
3.Collector & District Magistrate, Dausa. 4. Dy. Director (Jaipur Range), Deptt. of Education,, Gandhi Nagar, Jaipur
----Respondents
Connected With
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9368/2006
Babu Lal Yadav S/o Shri Suraj Mal Yadav, aged 52 years, R/o Village Bilanderpur, Via Khejroli, Tehsil Shahpura, District Jaipur (Raj.)
----Petitioner
Versus
| For Petitioner(s) | : | Mr. Devendra Kumar Bhardwaj, Mr. Raghunandan Sharma, Mr. Abhinav Shrivastava, Ms. Kritika Rajawat, Ms. Meeta Pareek, Mr. Ayush Bishnoim, Ms. Manasvita Sharma, Mr. Kailash Chand Sharma |
|---|---|---|
| For Respondent(s) | : | Mr. Abhishek Sharma, Mr. S.M. Sharma, |
| Mr. Manisk Kaswan for | ||
| Mr. Manoj Sharma, AAG, | ||
| Ms. Apporva Agarwal, | ||
| Mr. Avinash Bhardwaj, | ||
| Mr. Divyansh Chaudhary with | ||
| Mr. Himanshu Jain, | ||
| Mr. Ashutosh Udawat for | ||
| Mr. Kapil Prakash Mathur,AAG |
(4 of 9)
[2026:RJ-JP:7430]
[CW-1102/2004]
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAVEER BHATNAGAR
Order
1. Date of conclusion of arguments 10/ 02/2026
2. Date on which the judgment
3. Whether the full judgment or only the operative part is pronounced Full Judgment 4. Date of pronouncement 17/02 /2026
[2026:RJ-JP:7430]
[CW-1102/2004]
(5 of 9)
services of the following persons, namely: Anil Kumar Sharma, Dharmendra Kumar Sharma, Babu Lal Sharma, Vishnu Kumar Sharma, Dinesh Kumar Parashar and Ramesh Chandra Sharma, were terminated.
It is also stated in the reply that PTI Murari Lal Kalal also filed a Civil Suit before the Civil Court at Dausa, which was decreed in favour of Murari Lal Kalal, and the Collector, Dausa, did not challenge the said order. The reply also states that the petitioners in the present writ petition were not meritorious for the post of PTI. The respondents have, from time to time, filed a certain compliance report in pursuance of the order passed in the present writ petition. Mr Chhitar Mal Meena and Ghanshyam Lal Verma have already been retired long back, and the officers have been exonerated; therefore, the application filed by the petitioner for compliance with the order dated 13.07.2012 may be dismissed.
[2026:RJ-JP:7430]
[CW-1102/2004]
(6 of 9)
fresh inquiry. The said order was challenged in D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 882/2017, and the Division Bench, vide judgment dated 30.10.2017, quashed the entire disciplinary proceedings and the termination order because second disciplinary proceedings cannot be initiated on the same cause of action. The said judgment was challenged before the Apex Court in SLP No. 38992/2018, titled State of Rajasthan & Ors. Vs. Anil Kumar Sharma and the SLP were dismissed vide order dated 30.08.2019. It is also stated on oath that criminal proceedings were also initiated against him, in which he has been charge-sheeted. It is also stated in the affidavit that the Court direction dated 13.07.2012 has already been complied with, and the Court has become 'functus officio' after disposal of the petition on 13.07.2012; therefore, the applications submitted by the petitioners may be dismissed.
"In view of the facts narrated above, it is a case where it is none other but official respondents who promote an instrument to continue illegal and irregular appointment despite reports indicating the use of forged documents to get bonus marks, thereby leaving meritorious candidates like the petitioners. This Commissioner Court direction was issued to the Principal Department concerned, Secretary, with the hope that proper action would be taken in the matter, so that those who could get an appointment based on their own merit, without indulging in fraudulent acts, may continue, leaving those who had taken appointments based on forged documents. There is a failure of the administration to act, as they remain on the matter and continue to appoint candidates based on forged documents. The Court, however, cannot
(7 of 9)
[2026:RJ-JP:7430]
[CW-1102/2004]
shut its eyes to the aforesaid. administration is and not more taking SO when action effectively, rather their action is not but half-hearted, to give effect to the orders only superficial therefore, passed by needs to be this Court earlier, referred matter of the Superintendent of Police, Dausa with a direction to make complete investigation in the recruitment of the year 1995 to the post of GradeIII in PTI District and submit its report to this Court so Dausa investigation that truth may come as to who is the beneficiary of the appointment based on forged documents and with lower merit leaving those who could get appointment genuinely. The Superintendent of Police, Dausa, may register a separate case in the matter with the concerned Police Station so that further action may be taken against those candidates and members of the Selection Committee who were instrumental in making illegal and fraudulent appointments. At this stage, the investigation report should be placed before this Court within two months.
The direction given above is for the ends of justice and to get the truth of the appointment of the year 1995 to the post of PTI Grade-III. This is in the facts and circumstances that there is a failure on the part of the administration to take proper action in the matter, that too, when directions were given even to the higher authorities, i.e., the Principal Secretary to the Department, to the Commissioner. This Court would then take a view as to what action should be taken against those officers who failed to act promptly in the matter and to comply with the directions issued by this Court from time to time. The Court's efforts are only to ensure fairness in the administration's actions.
On getting the report, if it is found that certain candidates have been given forged documents, appointment-based, then as per the judgment of the Hon'ble Court in the Manipur and others Versus Y. Token Singh, Apex no case of State of and others reported in (2007) 5 SCC 65, notice is required to be given to them. Rather, action for termination of the administration of my
(8 of 9)
[2026:RJ-JP:7430]
[CW-1102/2004]
services as the principal of natural justice must be followed for those who have taken appointment by legal means. If a candidate is found to have clearly engaged in a fraudulent act to secure an appointment, and the appointment is subsequently terminated, the resulting vacancy should be filled by candidates who stand in merit. Direction aforesaid has been given while disposing of the present writ petitions in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case and for the ends of justice. The writ petitions have been disposed of but are listed before this Court after three months, pending the investigation report by the Superintendent of Police, Dausa. The registry is directed to send a copy of this order to the Superintendent of Police, Dausa, for compliance.
This disposes of stay applications also."
The State Government has complied with the directions and, pursuant to that, initiated a departmental inquiry against the alleged persons accused of using forged documents in the selection process. The State Government has also terminated the services of persons who allegedly used forged documents; however, a subsequent challenge to the termination order resulted in it being set aside, and the matter went up to the Hon'ble Apex Court in the matter of Anil Kumar.
[2026:RJ-JP:7430]
[CW-1102/2004]
(9 of 9)
considering that nothing is required to be complied with the directions dated 13.7.2012.
(PRAVEER BHATNAGAR),J
Keshav/148-150
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the State had complied with the Court's directions dated 13.07.2012 regarding investigation and action against candidates appointed on forged documents.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
State of Manipur and others Versus Y. Token Singh and othersRelied on
(2007) 5 SCC 65 · Who else cites this
Dilip Kumar Sharma
Ramesh Chandra Pareek
Babu Lal Yadav
State of Rajasthan
Praveer Bhatnagar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
