Major Highlights from Rajasthan High Court – July 9, 2025

The Rajasthan High Court was abuzz today with several high-profile hearings and rulings across recruitment irregularities, bail extensions, institutional transfers, and exam controversies. Here's a detailed rundown of the major proceedings from Wednesday, July 9, 2025.

Advocate General Challenges SI Recruitment Cancellation

Background & Court Proceedings

• Case: 2021 Sub‑Inspector (SI) recruitment exam amid paper‑leak allegations involving coaching centers, exam officials, and RPSC members.

• AG’s Stand: Advocate General Rajendra Prasad petitioned to modify the High Court’s order noting state failure to refute the alleged malpractices.

• Key Argument: While acknowledging isolated misconduct, he emphasized disciplinary actions taken—including service terminations—and maintained such incidents do not vitiate the entire process.

• Next Step: Additional hearings scheduled for Wednesday to reassess whether the entire recruitment process should be annulled.

Court’s Prior Comments

• Justice Sameer Jain described the case as “not ordinary,” criticizing the government’s handling, and flagged the seriousness of paper‑leak allegations.

Interim Bail Extended for Asaram

• Decision: The High Court extended Asaram’s interim bail until August 12, 2025, citing continuing health concerns.

• Context: This marks his third bail extension. The previous periods ended July 1 and July 9.

• Reasoning: Bench comprising Justices Dinesh Mehta and Vineet Kumar Mathur accepted medical arguments, following a similar interim bail extended by the Gujarat High Court on July 3.

NEET UG 2025 Re‑Exam Pleas Rejected

• Petitions Dismissed: Requests for re‑examination or compensation due to power outages at exam centres in Sikar were dismissed.

• Statistics:

  • Outages affected ~5,390 students out of 31,787 in Sikar (~0.5% of 2.2 million applicants).

  • A committee investigation found no duration or performance discrepancies.

• Court’s Rationale: Justice Sameer Jain emphasized the principle that millions cannot be penalized for isolated incidents.

Stay on RUHS Medical & Dental College Transfer

• Order Issued: A stay was placed on RUHS’s decision to transfer its medical and dental colleges to the state government.

• Context: Petitioners like Dr. Prakriti challenged the January 25 board resolution.

• Bench: Justice Sudesh Bansal granted time for the government to respond; further hearings pending.

Informatics Assistant Recruitment Stay Lifted

This decision opens the way for recruitment to proceed, reaffirming limited judicial oversight in technical assessments.

Summary of Today’s Developments

Takeaways 

1. SI Recruitment Paper Leak

   • AG contests cancellation; next hearing on Wednesday.

   • Justice Jain has flagged gravity of paper‑leaks.

2. Asaram Bail Extension

   • Granted until August 12 due to health.

   • Follows extensions from both Rajasthan and Gujarat HCs.

3. NEET UG Re‑Exam Pleas

   • Re‑examination and compensation petitions dismissed.

   • Court affirms large‑scale fairness upheld.

4. RUHS Medical/Dental College Stay

   • Government must file response soon; stay remains.

5. Informatics Assistant Recruitment

   • Stay lifted; recruitment to proceed for 3,415 posts.

   • Judicially kept narrow scope for technical evaluation.

What It Means: Legal & Public Impact

• Government Accountability: The High Court is actively scrutinizing government actions, from recruitment fairness to transfer of institutional control.

• Judicial Moderation: In examination disputes, the Court emphasizes limited judicial intervention when technical accuracy is at play.

• Public Trust: By addressing SI exam fraud allegations seriously, the judiciary seeks to maintain public confidence in recruitment.

• Health & Humanitarian Considerations: Extensions like Asaram’s bail show the Court balancing legal norms with compassionate grounds.

Conclusion

Today’s proceedings at the Rajasthan High Court reflect the judiciary’s active role in upholding justice, fairness, and accountability across critical public matters. From addressing mass recruitment irregularities to ensuring humane treatment in bail cases, the Court continues to balance public interest with constitutional integrity.

The Advocate General’s challenge to the SI recruitment cancellation could set a precedent affecting thousands of aspirants, while the Court’s firm stance in the NEET and Informatics Assistant matters underscores its refusal to derail large-scale processes over isolated errors. Meanwhile, the RUHS college transfer stay illustrates judicial concern for institutional autonomy.