[2025:RJ-JP:16722] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6167/2024 Rajendra Prasad S/o Rameshwar Lal, Aged About 37 Years, R/o Village Post Kachhwa, Teshil Nechhwa, District Sikar - 332026, Presently Working As School Lecturer - Urdu At K.b. Mor Government Girls Senior Secondary School, Nechhwa, District Sikar - 332026. ----Petitioner Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary, Department Of Education, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur (Rajasthan) 2. Principal Secretary To Government, Department Of Secondary Education, Secretariat, Jaipur (Rajasthan) 3. Special Secretary To Government, Education (Group-2) Department, Secretariat, Jaipur (Rajasthan) 4. Director, Secondary Education, Bikaner, Rajasthan. 5. District Education Officer (Hq) Secondary Education, Churu (Rajasthan) ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Madhav Dadhich with Mr. Akash Dadhich For Respondent(s) : Ms. Namita Parihar, Dy.GC. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL Order 21/04/2025 Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the issue involved herein as to award of punishment on account of result of his subject remaining below the standard prescribed by the Education Department, is no more res integra and stands resolved by a co-ordinate Bench order of this Court dated 12.08.2024 passed in the case of Rajendra Prasad Sharma Vs. State of [2025:RJ-JP:16722] (2 of 4) [CW-6167/2024] Rajasthan and Others: S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.20867/2012. He prays that the instant writ petition may also be allowed in terms thereof. Although, learned counsel for the respondents opposed the prayer; but, could not dispute that the issue involved already stands resolved by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Rajendra Prasad Sharma (supra). In the case of Rajendra Prasad Sharma (supra), this Court held as under:- "5. This fact is not in dispute that the petitioner was served with a charge-sheet under Rule 17 of the Rules of 1958 along with a memorandum of allegations wherein a charge was levelled against the petitioner, that he failed to meet with the expected standard of result of the students of Class 10th for the subject Maths and the same remained 18.52% only. Finding the aforesaid act of the petitioner as a misconduct, a penalty was imposed upon him vide impugned order dated 11.08.2010 by which one annual increment without cumulative effect was imposed upon him. This fact is not in dispute that aggrieved by the aforesaid order dated11.08.2010, the petitioner submitted any statutory appeal under Rule 23 of the Rules of 1958, however, the same was rejected on the technical count of delay but not on merits. The controversy involved in this petition has already been set at rest by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Dharamveer (supra), wherein the facts were almost identical and the said petition was decided with the following observations and directions:- “The allegation levelled against the petitioner is that in the educational session of 1998-99, result of the students of the school where the petitioner was teaching in the subject [2025:RJ-JP:16722] (3 of 4) [CW-6167/2024] of Science remained below the standard settled by the Education Department. In memorandum dt. 07.12.2000 issued by the Deputy Director, Secondary Education, Bikaner (Churu), it is nowhere stated that the result of the school in specific subject remain below the standard settled by the Education Department due to slackness, carelessness or due to some act of commission or omission on the part of the petitioner. It is well settled that to constitute misconduct in a service, there must be commission or omission of some act on the part of the employee. Beside this, charge should be specific and must be without any ambiguity. The allegation of misconduct must be based on specific acts, deeds or omission of the employee. In absence of it, the charge shall be vague. The charge levelled against the petitioner is not at all specific, as such the same is vague.” Following the aforesaid judgment, passed in the case of Dharamveer (supra) the Co-ordiante Bench of this Court at Principal Seat at Jodhpur in the case of Shailendra Kumar Bhatt (supra), has also taken the similar view. 6. In the instant case also there was no allegation that the result of the school concerned lowered down due to commission or omission on the part of the petitioner. The result below the norm settled by the Education Department, may be for several reasons and without arriving at a finding that the result came down due to commission or omission on the part of the petitioner, he could have not been penalized under Rule 17 of the Rules of 1958.Hence, the impugned orders dated 11.08.2010 & 06.06.2011,passed by the respondents, are not tenable in the eye of law and the same are liable to be quashed and set aside and the same are hereby quashed and set aside. 7. Accordingly, the writ petition stands allowed. 8. Stay application as well as all pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of." [2025:RJ-JP:16722] (4 of 4) [CW-6167/2024] Since, indisputably, the facts in the instant case are identical with the facts in the case of Rajendra Prasad Sharma (supra), this writ petition is also allowed in terms of the order dated 12.08.2024 passed therein. Pending applications no.1/2025 and 2/2025 stand disposed of accordingly. (MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL),J PRAGATI/234