[2025:RJ-JP:51384] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6757/2025 Meenakshi Rathore W/o Shri Praveen Rathore D/o Shri Ram Prasad Rathore, Aged About 36 Years, Resident Of Mangalpura, Jhalawar, District Jhalawar (Raj.) ----Petitioner Versus 1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary, Department Of Education, Govt. Secretariat, Govt. Of Rajasthan, Jaipur (Raj.) 2. The Director, Secondary Education, Bikaner (Raj.) 3. The Joint Director, Secondary Education, Kota Division, Kota (Raj.) 4. The Principal, Govt. Girls Sr. Secondary School, Asnavar, Block Jhalarapatan, District Jhalawar (Raj.) ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. G.S. Gouttam For Respondent(s) : Mr. Manoj Sharma, AAG HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR JAIN Order 18/12/2025 1. Instant writ petition is preferred by petitioner with following prayer: “It is, therefore, humbly prayed that this writ petition of the petitioner may kindly be allowed, I) The Hon'ble Court may be declare illegal, arbitrary the orders dated 25.08.2023, 29.01.2025 and 25.02.2025 and same may kindly be quashed and set aside; ii) Further may be directed to the respondents to grant annual grade increment from 27.12.2023 in place of [2025:RJ-JP:51384] (2 of 4) [CW-6757/2025] 27.12.2024 which is sanctioned vide order dated 20.02.2024 with retrospective effect; iii) Any other appropriate order, or direction which this Hon'ble court deem fit and proper in favour of the appellant may also kindly be passed.” 2. Learned counsel for petitioner while referring and relying upon judgment dated 20.05.2013 in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.2250/2013 titled as “Shailendra Kumar Bhatt Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. submits that the controversy and the issue raised herein is already settled by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Hon’ble Court, thereafter in case of Rajendra Prasad Sharma Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.:S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.20867/2012, order dated 12.08.2024. He further submitted that instant writ petition be disposed of in accordance with aforesaid orders. 3. Mr. Manoj Kumar Sharma, AAG, accepts notice on behalf of the respondents. Office is directed to reflect his name as counsel for the respondents. 4. The controversy raised herein by the petitioner is that the petitioner is a teacher of Mathematics subject and for session 2021-22, due to less result in Mathematics subject i.e. 52.73%, a penalty of censure was imposed upon the petitioner which resulted into one year delay in grant of ACP. The petitioner has challenged the grant of ACP from 27.12.2024 instead of 27.12.2023. 5. In case of Shailendra Kumar Bhatt Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. : S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2250/2013, a Co-ordinate Bench at Principal Seat, Jodhpur while considering the judgment in case of Dharamveer Vs. [2025:RJ-JP:51384] (3 of 4) [CW-6757/2025] State of Rajasthan & Ors. reported in 2005(5) RDD 1219 (Raj.) has observed that bad result of students may be on account of various reasons and for which teacher or principal of the school cannot be held responsible. 6. In case of Rajendra Prasad Sharma Vs. State of Rajasthan and Ors. : S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.20867/2012 again referring ratio in case of Dharamveer (supra) and Shailendra Kumar Bhatt (supra) observed that the result below the norm may be for several reasons and without ascertaining any act or omission on part of teacher, he could could have not been penalized under Order 17 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958. 7. Even also, in case of Raghuveer Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors: S.B. CWP No. 20358/2018 decided on 07.05.2024, it was held that penalty of censure does not come in way to defer ACP or promotion of an employee. Thus, on basis of penalty of censure, the ACP cannot be shifted to another year. 8. Having considered aforesaid legal position, the petitioner is directed to file a representation in light of legal position as mentioned hereinabove to the respondents who shall consider and decide the representation of the present petitioner in light of ratio laid down in aforementioned cases but in case of deviation from the ratio, the respondents shall pass a reasoned and speaking order within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of representation under an [2025:RJ-JP:51384] (4 of 4) [CW-6757/2025] intimation to the petitioner. The petitioner is at liberty to challenge the decision by filing a fresh writ petition. 9. With the aforesaid directions, the present writ petition with pending application, if any, stands disposed of. (ASHOK KUMAR JAIN),J CHETNA BEHRANI /533