Allowed¶29

Kamal Kumar S/O Shri Mohan Lal, v. Rajasthan High Court

Rajasthan HC11 Feb 2026CW/27889/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Rajasthan High Court Jaipur DB; Kamal Kumar v. Rajasthan High Court; censure penalty; denial of promotion 2013-2014 and 2014-2015; Judicial Assistant promotion; Rule 17 CCA Rules 1958 charge-sheet; arbitrary denial of promotion; reconsideration for 2014-2015 instead of 2015-2016; notional consequential benefits; order dated 17.02.2017; writ petition allowed; Stamp Reporter and Court Fee Examiner cadre seniority.

What did the court decide?

Respondents directed to reconsider the petitioner's case for promotion to the post of Judicial Assistant for the year 2014-2015 instead of 2015-2016; petitioner entitled to all notional consequential benefits; necessary orders to be passed within three months. ¶29

Kamal Kumar S/O Shri Mohan Lal, Vs Rajasthan High Court — Rajasthan HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶29

Issue for consideration

Whether the respondents were justified in denying promotion to the petitioner to the post of Judicial Assistant for the years 2013-2014 and 2014-2015 on the ground of the penalty of censure.

¶20

Court's answer

Non-consideration of the petitioner for promotion for the year 2013-2014 on account of the penalty of censure was legally justified.

¶27

Ratio / Principle

In considering promotions for the year 2014-2015, the respondents committed an error in not promoting the petitioner and instead granted him promotion for the year 2015-2016 without any justifiable reason.

¶27

Key takeaways

Since only one penalty of censure was operative against the petitioner at the time of the promotion exercise, denial of promotion for the year 2014-2015 was arbitrary and unjustified and deserved to be set aside.ratio¶28
The writ petition is allowed; the respondents are directed to reconsider the petitioner for promotion to the post of Judicial Assistant for the year 2014-2015 instead of 2015-2016, with all notional consequential benefits, and to pass necessary orders within three months.ratio¶29

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Division Bench (Inderjeet Singh and Ravi Chirania, JJ.) allowed D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 27889/2018. The petitioner, a Junior Judicial Assistant punished with censure after a Rule 17 enquiry under the Rajasthan Civil Services (CCA) Rules, 1958, was held to have been rightly excluded from promotion for 2013-2014, but his denial of promotion for 2014-2015 was held arbitrary and unjustified since only one penalty of censure was operative; the respondents were directed to reconsider him for promotion to Judicial Assistant for 2014-2015 instead of 2015-2016 (order dated 17.02.2017), with all notional consequential benefits, necessary orders within three months.

¶1

[2026:RJ-JP:6493-DB]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 27889/2018

¶4

Kamal Kumar S/o Shri Mohan Lal, Aged About 42 Years, Resident Of 23/47, Swarn Path, Mansarovar, Jaipur.

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

1. Rajasthan High Court, Through Its Registrar General , Jodhpur (Raj.)

¶8

Neelmani D/o Shri Pukhraj Tank, Aged About 40 Years, Posted As Judicial Assistant At Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur.

¶9

	----Respondents
For Petitioner(s)	: Mr. SandeepSaxena
For Respondent(s)	: Mr. Tanveer Ahamad

¶10

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE INDERJEET SINGH HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI CHIRANIA Order

¶11

11/02/2026

¶12

This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner with the

¶13

following prayers:-

¶14

“It is, therefore, prayed that the Hon'ble Court may call for the entire record concerning the case and after examining the same, by issuing writ, order or direction or in the nature thereof;

¶15

i). And the action on the part of the respondent. as well as order dated 17.02.2017 so far as it relates to the petitioner may kindly be quashed and set aside and the respondent may directed to promote the petitioner on the post of Judicial Assistant against the vacancies of 2013-14 from the date his juniors were promoted with all consequential benefits and accordingly revised the seniority in the cadre of Stamp Reporter and Court Fee Examiner the arrears may be paid to the petitioners along with 18% interest. ii). Any prejudicial order to the interest of the petitioners, if passed during the pendency of the writ petition, the same may kindly be

(2 of 3)

[2026:RJ-JP:6493-DB]

[CW-27889/2018]

taken on record and be pleased to quash and set aside. iii)Any other appropriate writ, order or direction, which this Hon'ble Court may consider just and proper, in the facts and circumstances of the case, may kindly be passed in favour of the petitioners. iv). Cost of this writ petition may also be awarded in favour of humble petitioners.”

¶20

Brief facts of the case are that while the petitioner was working on the post of Junior Judicial Assistant, he was served with a charge-sheet under Rule 17 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as “the CCA Rules, 1958”). After completion of the enquiry, he was awarded the penalty of censure. Thereafter, when the promotion exercise was conducted by the respondents in the year 2013–2014, the petitioner was denied promotion on the ground of the said penalty. Subsequently, the respondents again conducted the promotional exercise, and the petitioner was granted promotion to the post of Judicial Assistant for the year 2015–2016 instead of 2014–2015 vide order dated 17.02.2017. Hence, the present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the action of the respondents in not granting him promotion for the years 2013–2014 and 2014–2015.

¶21

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that only the penalty of censure was imposed upon the petitioner. He further submits that at best, the respondents could have deferred the promotional benefit for one year; however, they deferred the petitioner’s promotion for two years, i.e., 2013–2014 and 2014– 2015, which is unjustified.

[2026:RJ-JP:6493-DB]

[CW-27889/2018]

(3 of 3)

Learned counsel for the respondents opposed the writ petition.

¶26

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

¶27

Admittedly, the penalty of censure was imposed upon the petitioner while he was working on the post of Junior Judicial Assistant. Thereafter, the respondents did not consider him for promotion for the year 2013–2014, which appears to be legally justified. However, while considering promotions for the year 2014–2015, the respondents committed an error in not promoting the petitioner and instead granted him promotion for the year 2015–2016 without any justifiable reason, vide order dated 17.02.2017.

¶28

From the record, it is evident that only one penalty of censure was operative against the petitioner at the time the promotion exercise was conducted. Therefore, denial of promotion to the petitioner for the year 2014–2015 is arbitrary and unjustified. The action of the respondents in not granting promotion for the said year deserves to be set aside.

¶29

In that view of the matter, the present writ petition is allowed. The respondents are directed to reconsider the case of the petitioner for promotion to the post of Judicial Assistant for the year 2014–2015 instead of 2015–2016. The petitioner shall be entitled to all notional consequential benefits. Necessary orders shall be passed within a period of three months.

¶30

(RAVI CHIRANIA),J

¶31

(INDERJEET SINGH),J

¶32

Upendra Pratap Singh /48

Kamal Kumar S/O Shri Mohan Lal, v. Rajasthan High Court

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kamal Kumar S/O Shri Mohan Lal, v. Rajasthan High Court

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

The Union of India Vs Smt. Sumitra Wd/O No. 6601719 Late Sep Sumar Singh

Dr. Kuldeep Singh Yadav S/O Shri Sheokaran Dusad Vs the Union of India

Union of India Vs Kanhiya Lal Morya Son of Shri Mali Ram Morya

Dr. Dinesh Singh Shekhawat S/O Shri Abhay Singh Shekhawat Vs the State of Rajasthan

Sanwal Ram Verma (Now Deceased) Vs the State of Rajasthan

Raj Kamal Daiya S/O Rameshwar Lal Vs the State of Rajasthan