Dismissed¶39

Smt. Sangam Choudhary Wife of Shri Vishvendra Singh v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC19 Mar 2026SAW/243/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Rajasthan High Court Jaipur; D.B. Special Appeal Writ 243/2026; Sangam Choudhary v. State of Rajasthan; Pradhan; Panchayat Samiti Kathumar; Zila Parishad Alwar; suspension order 25.04.2025; interim stay 09.05.2025; writ petition No.6663/2025 dismissed 20.08.2025; interim order merges with final order; stay automatically vacated; consequential bar order 22.01.2026; ACEO Zila Parishad letter 23.01.2026; appellant treated as under suspension; appeal dismissed 19/03/2026.

What did the court decide?

The order dated 22.01.2026 is not a fresh suspension order but an order by which the petitioner was barred from performing her duties. ¶24

Smt. Sangam Choudhary Wife of Shri Vishvendra Singh Vs State of Rajasthan — Rajasthan HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶39

Issue for consideration

Whether the order dated 22.01.2026 by which the appellant was barred from performing her duties as Pradhan was liable to be quashed, notwithstanding the dismissal of her earlier writ petition (No.6663/2025) against the suspension order dated 25.04.2025 and the consequent merger of the interim stay with the final order.

¶22

Court's answer

The order dated 22.01.2026 is not a fresh suspension order but an order by which the petitioner was barred from performing her duties.

¶24

Ratio / Principle

The order dated 22.01.2026 was passed in consequence of the dismissal of the appellant's earlier writ petition.

¶24

Key takeaways

In view of the dismissal of the main writ petition, the stay order passed earlier merges with the final order and the appellant is to be treated as under suspension from that date itself.ratio¶30
It is settled law that an interim order gets merged with the final order; upon dismissal of the earlier writ petition the stay stood automatically vacated and the original suspension order dated 25.04.2025 came into operation again, with the petitioner-appellant to be treated as under suspension.ratio¶32
The contention that, having been reinstated on 20.08.2025, the appellant had a right to join the post and that the concerned officer could not prevent her from performing her duties as Pradhan, is wholly misconceived.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 243/2026 (Rajasthan High Court, Jaipur Bench; Acting CJ Sanjeev Prakash Sharma and Baljinder Singh Sandhu, JJ.; order dated 19/03/2026) — DISMISSED. The Division Bench affirmed the learned Single Judge's dismissal (judgment dated 26.02.2026) of the appellant-Pradhan's writ petition challenging the respondents' order dated 22.01.2026 barring her from performing her duties. Holding that the order dated 22.01.2026 was not a fresh suspension but a consequential measure following the dismissal on 20.08.2025 of her earlier writ petition (No.6663/2025) against the suspension order dated 25.04.2025, the Bench held that the interim stay of 09.05.2025 merged with the final order of dismissal, stood automatically vacated, and revived the original suspension order, so that the appellant remained under suspension and could not join duties; the letter dated 23.01.2026 of the Additional Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Alwar therefore warranted no interference.

¶1

[2026:RJ-JP:11939-DB]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 243/2026

¶4

Smt. Sangam Choudhary Wife Of Shri Vishvendra Singh, Aged About 37 Years, Resident Of Village And Post Arruwa, Tehsil Kathumar, District Alwar, Rajasthan.

¶5

----Appellant

¶6

Versus

¶7

State Of Rajasthan, Through The Chief Secretary, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur Rajasthan.

¶8

Secretary, Rural Development And Panchayati Raj Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur, Secretariat, Rajasthan.

¶9

Additional Commissioner And Deputy Secretary To The Government (Ii), Panchayati Raj Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur, Rajasthan.

¶10

Divisional Commissioner, Jaipur Division, Jaipur 5. District Collector, Alwar

¶11

Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad Alwar, Rajasthan. 7. Block Development Officer, Panchayat Samiti, Kathumar, District Alwar

¶12

----Respondents

¶13

For Appellant(s)	: Mr. PradeepKalwania
For Respondent(s)	: -----

¶14

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

¶15

Order

¶16

19/03/2026

¶17

The appellant by way of this writ petition challenges the judgment dated 26.02.2026, whereby her writ petition was dismissed.

¶18

Learned counsel for the appellant vehemently argued that the learned Single Judge has erred in rejecting the writ petition.

¶19

[2026:RJ-JP:11939-DB]

¶20

[SAW-243/2026]

¶21

(2 of 4)

¶22

He submits that the appellant had been reinstated by the respondents on the basis of Government's decision to reinstate. Although the stay order has been passed by the High Court staying the earlier suspension order dated 25.04.2025, the same was not implemented and the learned Single Judge has failed to take into consideration that an elected person could not have been suspended again. Learned counsel has further submitted that merely because of the earlier dismissal of the writ petition, the suspension order could not have been passed again. Moreover, he submits that while the decision was taken by the High Court in dismissing the earlier writ petition on 20.08.2025, the subsequent suspension order passed in January 2026 is not in consequence of the dismissal of the writ petition. He further submits that while the Court had passed an order in the earlier writ petition to conclude the inquiry within a period of three months, the inquiry had not been even concluded. The suspension order dated 22.01.2026, therefore, was required to be quashed and the writ petition deserves to be allowed.

¶23

We have considered the submissions.

¶24

We notice that the order dated 22.01.2026 is not a suspension order, but is mainly an order by which the petitioner was not disallowed to perform duties. The order was passed in consequence of the dismissal of the earlier writ petition of the petitioner.

¶25

In the writ petition No.6663/2025 filed earlier by the petitioner against the order dated 25.04.2025 by which she had been suspended, an interim order was passed on 09.05.2025 staying the operation of the suspension order dated 25.04.2025.

¶26

[2026:RJ-JP:11939-DB]

¶27

[SAW-243/2026]

¶28

(3 of 4)

¶29

The compliance of the stay order dated 09.05.2025 was made by issuing order dated 20.08.2025. Incidentally, the main writ petition came to be heard and judgment was reserved on 11.08.2025 and pronounced on 20.08.2025 itself when the petitioner was reinstated, the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition.

¶30

In view of the dismissal of the main writ petition, the stay order passed earlier would also merge and in fact the appellant would be treated to be under suspension from that date itself. However, the respondents passed an order on 22.01.2026, whereby it did not allow the petitioner to perform her duties of Pradhan.

¶31

Assailing the same, the petitioner filed a writ petition before this Court. The learned Single Judge has noticed that the petition challenging the suspension order dated 25.04.2025 was dismissed by the High Court. Therefore, the reinstatement order dated 20.08.2025 would become ineffective as the order dated 20.08.2025 of reinstatement was on account of the interim order passed by the Court. The writ petition for allowing the petitioner to join, therefore, was rejected.

¶32

The contention of learned counsel that after the petitioner had been reinstated on 20.08.2025, the right to join on the post and the concerned officer could not prevent her from performing duties of Pradhan is wholly misconceived. Upon the dismissal of the earlier writ petition, where initially stay was granted, the stay order would stand automatically vacated as it is settled law that an interim order gets merged with the final order. Thus, the original order of suspension order dated 25.04.2025 would come

¶33

(4 of 4)

¶34

[2026:RJ-JP:11939-DB]

¶35

[SAW-243/2026]

¶36

into operation again and the petitioner-appellant would be treated to be under suspension.

¶37

Consequently, she could not have been allowed to join duties as a Pradhan and the letter dated 23.01.2026 therefore issued by the Additional Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Alwar did not warrant interference.

¶38

The appeal is found to be therefore without merits.

¶39

Accordingly, the Special Appeal Writ is dismissed.

¶40

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

¶41

Jatin/87

Smt. Sangam Choudhary Wife of Shri Vishvendra Singh v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Sangam Choudhary Wife of Shri Vishvendra Singh v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ritika Verma D/O Ramkumar Verma Vs State of Rajasthan

Divya Singh D/O Pashupati Nath Singh Vs State of Rajasthan

Pragati Mishra D/O Rajesh Kumar Mishra Vs State of Rajasthan

India Seah Precision Metal Private Limited Vs Union of India

Director, Integrated Child Development Services Vs M/S Murliwala Agrotech Pvt. Ltd.

Prashant Jat S/O Late Mr. Ram Sahai Jat Vs Bank of Baroda