Created byFuzzy Cloud

Legislation

Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Rules, 1996

7 Supreme Court judgments cite this Act.

HARSHENDRA CHOUBISA AND ORS.versusSTATE OF RAJASTHAN AND ORS.

2002 INSC 31430 July 2002Disposed off

The Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Rules, 1996 (Rule 273) allowed a 10% bonus for state residents, another 10% for district residents and 5% for rural‑area residents in the merit list for Gram Sewak and Panchayat Secretary posts. Writ petitions challenged this as violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. The Rajas

KAILASH CHAND SHARMA ETC. ETC.versusSTATE OF RAJASTHAN AND ORS.

2002 INSC 31530 July 2002Disposed off

The Supreme Court examined a 1998 circular issued under the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Rules that granted 10% bonus marks to district residents and 5% to rural‑area residents in the selection of primary‑school teachers. Unsuccessful candidates challenged the circular, arguing it violated Articles 14 and 16 of the Constit

SARDAR MEENAversusTHE STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND ORS.

2022 INSC 22022 February 2022Disposed off

An FIR was lodged against Sarpanch Sardar Meena alleging house trespass, indiscriminate firing and injuries to the complainant. The High Court granted him bail, and a preliminary enquiry under Section 38(1) of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act, 1994, read with Rule 22(2) of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Rules, 1996, led

MADAN MOHAN SHARMA & ANR.versusSTATE OF RAJASTHAN & ORS.

2008 INSC 23922 February 2008Dismissed

The Rajasthan Zilla Parishad advertised vacancies for Teacher Grade‑III posts in 1996 based on a circular that required only Secondary Examination marks. During the selection process the government issued a new circular raising the qualification to Higher Secondary and later, under Rule 296 of the Rajasthan Panchayati

THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ORS.versusTRILOK RAM

2019 INSC 102612 September 2019Appeal(s) allowed

The State of Rajasthan advertised recruitment for Teacher Grade III (Level I & II) in 2013, requiring candidates to possess the prescribed qualifications as on the last date of application. Respondent Trilok Ram, who was still completing the mandatory B.S.T.C. qualification, applied based on a High Court order and late

MANILALversusTHE STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ORS.

2024 INSC 67510 September 2024Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, a reserved‑category candidate, applied for the post of Teacher Grade‑III (Level II) in a Scheduled Area of Rajasthan but was rejected because his graduation percentage (44.58%) fell short of the 45% threshold. He had secured admission to a B.Ed. programme on 23 October 2009, after the NCTE notification d

THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ANR.versusANJU RINI SAINI

2022 INSC 1372 February 2022Appeal(s) allowed

The State of Rajasthan advertised vacancies for Lower Division Clerk (LDC) in 2013, requiring candidates to possess the Rajasthan State Certificate in Information Technology (RSCIT) by 22 March 2013. The respondent, a widow, applied after the deadline without the RSCIT qualification and was rejected. She obtained the q

Search Indian case law

Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.

Search by issue, statute, judge or citationSign in to search