PINKY MEENAversusTHE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR & ANR.

                  [2025] 7 S.C.R. 79 : 2025 INSC 756

                            Pinky Meena
                                  v.
                   The High Court of Judicature for
                     Rajasthan at Jodhpur & Anr.
                       (Civil Appeal No. 7091 of 2025)
                                 22 May 2025
       [B.V. Nagarathna and Satish Chandra Sharma,* JJ.]


                           Issue for Consideration
       Whether the appellant was wrongly discharged from service as a
       Civil Judge on the ground of non-disclosure of past government
       service as a Teacher and having obtained LL.B. and B.Ed degree
       simultaneously, and LL.M. degree as a regular student while being
       in service as a teacher.

                                  Headnotes†
       Rajasthan Judicial Service Rules, 2010 – rr.14, 44-46 – Appellant
       was discharged from service as a Civil Judge on the ground
       of non-disclosure of past government service as a Teacher –
       Sustainability:
       Held: Non-disclosure of past government service cannot be a
       ground for discharging the appellant – On the date of interview,
       the appellant was no longer a government servant as she had
       tendered her resignation much prior to the interview – Thus, the
       question of disclosing the past government service was not a
       material irregularity or a serious misconduct for which she ought to
       be discharged from service especially when she has successfully
       completed her training without any blemish – Further, misconduct, if
       any, in respect of obtaining LL.B. and B.Ed degree simultaneously
       or in respect of LL.M. degree related to the service period prior to
       being a Judicial Officer when she was serving as a Teacher with
       the Government of Rajasthan – Show cause notice and discharge
       order quashed – Appellant to be reinstated in service with all
       consequential benefits – Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification,
       Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958. [Paras 17, 18, 27, 32]
       Service Law – Probation – Termination from service – On
       account of unsuitablility for the job vis-à-vis owing to a

* Author
80                                                            [2025] 7 S.C.R.

                          Supreme Court Reports


      misconduct – Effect – Duty of Courts – Discussed – Articles
      14, 16 – Rajasthan Judicial Service Rules, 2010 – rr.14, 44-46.
      [Paras 24, 26]
      Judiciary – Greater participation of women in judiciary,
      emphasized – Importance of advancing women’s greater
      participation in the judiciary, stated. [Paras 28- 30]

                               Case Law Cited
      Shamsher Singh v. State of Punjab [1975] 1 SCR 814 : (1974)
      2 SCC 831; Raj Kumar v. Union of India [1968] 3 SCR 857;
      Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut Prasaran Nigam Ltd. v. Anil Kanwariya
      [2021] 7 SCR 710 : (2021) 10 SCC 136; Hari Singh Mann v. State
      of Punjab, AIR 1974 SC 2263; State of Punjab and another v.
      Sukh Raj Bahadur [1968] 3 SCR 234; H.F. Sangati v. Registrar
      General, High Court of Karnataka [2001] 2 SCR 83 : (2001) 3 SCC
      117; Rajesh Kohli v. High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and others
      [2010] 11 SCR 699 : (2010) 12 SCC 783; Rajasthan High Court,
      Jodhpur v. Akashdeep Morya & Anr., 2021 INSC 485 : [2021] 10
      SCR 723; Jaswantsingh Pratapsingh Jadeja v. Rajkot Municipal
      Corporation [2007] 10 SCR 1124 : (2007) 10 SCC 71 – referred to.

                                 List of Acts
      Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules,
      1958; Rajasthan Judicial Service Rules, 2010; Constitution of India.

                              List of Keywords
      Rajasthan Judicial Service (RJS); Civil Judge and Judicial
      Magistrate; Discharge from service; Non-disclosure of past
      government service; Not a material irregularity or a serious
      misconduct; Discontinued from service; Termination from service;
      Government Teacher; Teacher Grade–II; Education Department,
      Government of Rajasthan; No longer a government servant;
      Tendered resignation much prior to the interview; Probationer;
      Probation period; Suppression of material information; Misconduct;
      LL.B. and B.Ed degree obtained simultaneously, Degree obtained
      in the same year; LL.M. degree; University of Rajasthan; Judicial
      Officer; No Objection Certificate (NOC); Show cause notice and
      discharge order quashed; Termination simpliciter; Full Court;
      Reinstatement in service with consequential benefits; Principles
[2025] 7 S.C.R.                                                             81

                           Pinky Meena v.
     The High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jodhpur & Anr.

     of natural justice violated; Judiciary; Women’s greater participation
     in the judiciary; Gender equality; Representation of women in the
     judiciary.

                            Case Arising From
     CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 7091 of 2025
     From the Judgment and Order dated 24.08.2023 of the High Court
     of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jaipur in DBCWP No. 6752 of 2020

                         Appearances for Parties
     Advs. for the Appellant:
     P.S.Patwalia, Sr. Adv., Mayank Jain, Parmatma Singh, Madhur
     Jain, Ms. Aakriti Dhawan, Arpit Goel.
     Advs. for the Respondents:
     Ms. Aishwarya Bhati, ASG, Mukul Kumar, Ms. Anupriya Srivastava,
     S. Udaya Kumar Sagar, Tushar Singh.

                Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court

                                 Judgment

     Satish Chandra Sharma, J.

1.   Leave granted.
2.   The present appeal is arising out of order dated 24.08.2023 passed
     in D.B.Civil Writ Petition No. 6752 of 2020 by the High Court of
     Judicature for Rajasthan Bench at Jaipur (hereinafter referred to as
     “High Court”) dismissing the writ petition preferred by the appellant.
     The High Court by way of the aforesaid order has declined relief to
     the appellant against show cause notice dated 17.02.2020 and the
     discharge order dated 29.05.2020.
3.   The facts of the case reveal that the appellant before this Court is
     holding a degree in Bachelor of Arts, Bachelor of Education, Bachelor
     of Laws and Masters in Law, and was serving as Teacher Grade–II
     in the Education Department, Government of Rajasthan with effect
     from 30.12.2014. The facts further reveal that an advertisement
     was issued by the High Court inviting applications for the post of
     Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate on 18.11.2017. Pursuant to her
82                                                         [2025] 7 S.C.R.

                         Supreme Court Reports


      application for the post of Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate, she
      was selected for the post in question. The appointment order was
      issued on 11.02.2019 and the appellant joined as a trainee RJS on
      06.03.2019, and completed her training successfully on 07.03.2020.
      Vide order dated 06.03.2020, the appellant was kept under Awaiting
      Posting Order (“APO”) and later her headquarter was changed vide
      order dated 23.03.2020 from Jodhpur to District and Sessions Judge,
      Jaipur Metro. A notice was issued to her on 17.02.2020 directing
      her to furnish a pointwise explanation to certain queries raised by
      the High Court and a reply was submitted by her on 02.03.2020.
      The show cause notice was issued under Rule 16 of Rajasthan
      Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958 and
      an Inquiry Report was also submitted in the matter. The Inquiry
      Report was placed before the Full Court of the High Court, and the
      Full Court arrived at a conclusion not to continue the appellant in
      service as she was a probationer and no certificate in respect of
      completion of probation period was issued by the High Court. The
      appellant being aggrieved by the order discharging her from service
      dated 29.05.2020 preferred a writ petition before the High Court and
      the High Court has dismissed the same.
4.    The show cause notice issued by the respondent sought explanation
      from the appellant on five counts which are detailed as under:
           “a) While studying in LL.B. first year, the petitioner also
           obtained degree of B.Ed. in the same year, thus fraudulently
           succeeding in showing attendance in both the courses.
           The contention of the petitioner is that she did not obtain
           the degree of LL.B and B.Ed. in the same year. As per
           the Ordinance No.168A of the Ordinance Handbook of
           Rajasthan University, a candidate cannot appear in two
           main examinations in the same year. As per the petitioner,
           LL.B First Year Examination is not main examination for
           obtaining the degree of LL.B.
           b) The petitioner while being in Government job as a
           Teacher did her LL.M. and again fraudulently succeeded
           in showing attendance in both the courses. The petitioner
           has given the explanation that she did not show her
           attendance fraudulently at two places simultaneously
           because generally no regular classes are held for LL.M.
           in the University.
[2025] 7 S.C.R.                                                           83

                           Pinky Meena v.
     The High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jodhpur & Anr.

           c) The petitioner concealed the fact of her employment in
           Government job as a Teacher in the checklist submitted
           at the time of interview of RJS. To this the petitioner
           has given her explanation to the effect that, there were
           no columns in Checklist for Interview wherein she was
           required to say that she was employed in Government
           service. The petitioner submitted that she had filled her
           checklist on 02.11.2018, whereas the petitioner submitted
           her resignation from the government service on 25-10-2018
           and had stopped reporting to service.
           d) The petitioner did not obtain any permission or ‘No
           Objection Certificate’ from the Education Department for
           appearing in the RJS Examination. To this the petitioner
           has given explanation that there is no provision in RJS
           Rules to obtain prior permission from the employer for
           appearing in RJS examination.
           e) The petitioner upon selection in RJS concealed this
           information from the High Court as well as from Education
           Department and joined the judicial services after resignation
           on medical grounds. To this the petitioner has explained
           that as on the date of joining RJS, the petitioner was not
           in Government service, therefore, no information was
           required to be furnished by the petitioner.”
5.   The aforesaid allegations reveal that the appellant while in service of
     the Education Department of the State of Rajasthan obtained LL.B.
     and B.Ed degree in the same year, obtained LL.M. degree while being
     in service as a teacher showing her attendance as a regular student,
     and did not obtain permission from the employer while participating
     in the RJS examination meaning thereby No Objection Certification
     was not obtained by her from the State Government. It was also
     alleged that she concealed her resignation from government service
     while joining as a Civil Judge.
6.   Learned counsel for the appellant has vehemently argued before
     this Court that so far as the allegation in respect of completing LL.B.
     and B.Ed courses together is concerned, misconduct, if any, was
     committed by the appellant while serving the Education Department
     and not while on probation in the judicial service, but the Education
     Department has not taken any action in the matter and the same
84                                                             [2025] 7 S.C.R.

                           Supreme Court Reports


      cannot be a ground to discharge her as a Civil Judge. Learned Senior
      Counsel for the appellant has also argued before this Court that
      the appellant at the relevant point of time when she submitted her
      application form was no longer in service in the Education Department
      of the State of Rajasthan and on the contrary, she has successfully
      completed her probation period without any blemish. Learned Senior
      Counsel has further argued that the appellant had resigned from the
      government job while joining the Rajasthan Judicial Service and in
      case the order is not set aside, she will be rendered jobless. It has
      also been argued that she is a tribal girl and has proved her worth
      by clearing the Rajasthan Judicial Service examination, hence, no
      purpose is going to be served by throwing her out especially when
      she has completed her training with flying colours.
7.    Learned Senior Counsel has vehemently argued before this Court
      that a show cause notice was certainly issued to the appellant and
      a detailed inquiry also took place in the matter which was conducted
      by the Registrar (Vigilance) and the said inquiry took place behind
      the back of the appellant without appointing a Presenting Officer
      or without giving any chance to the appellant to explain before the
      Inquiry Officer; no effective hearing was afforded to the appellant
      nor the inquiry report was furnished to the appellant.
8.    Learned Counsel has placed reliance on Shamsher Singh Vs. State
      of Punjab 1974 (2) SCC 831 to contend that the order discontinuing
      the services of the appellant is a stigmatic order as it was based
      upon an inquiry report holding the appellant guilty of the alleged
      misconduct. The order is violative of principles of natural justice and
      fair play as well as violative of Article 311 of the Constitution of India.
9.    Learned Senior Counsel has further argued before this Court that
      the present case is not a case where the appellant has suppressed
      material information relating to any criminal incidents. He has drawn
      the attention of this Court towards the application form submitted
      by the appellant which is on record and his contention is that on
      the date the form was submitted by the appellant, she was not in
      government service. A prayer has been made by the appellant for
      setting aside the order of discharge as well as the order passed by
      the High Court of Rajasthan.
10. The Respondent/High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jodhpur
    has filed a detailed and exhaustive reply and on oath has stated that
[2025] 7 S.C.R.                                                         85

                           Pinky Meena v.
     The High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jodhpur & Anr.

     the appellant has pursued B.Ed and LL.B. degree simultaneously
     which is not permissible as per the provisions of Ordinance 168-A and
     Ordinance 168-B of the Hand Book of University of Rajasthan and,
     therefore, the appellant has misconducted herself. The respondents
     have admitted the factum of issuance of advertisement for the
     post of Civil Judge cadre on 18.11.2017 and have stated that the
     requirement of obtaining ‘No Objection Certificate’ (“NOC”) from the
     employer was a necessary requirement and the appellant did not
     obtain an NOC before joining as a Civil Judge.
11. The respondents have further stated that the appellant while serving
    as a Government Teacher has pursued LL.M. from 2015 to 2017 and
    obtained degree from University of Rajasthan as a regular student
    without obtaining permission from the Education Department, and
    therefore, she has again misconducted herself.
12. The respondents have stated that a fact finding report was prepared
    by the Registrar (Vigilance) after seeking an explanation from the
    appellant and the allegations levelled in the show cause notice
    were established in the inquiry report. The respondents have further
    stated that the appellant has failed to disclose her earlier status of a
    government teacher in the application form and, therefore, the Full
    Court was justified in passing a resolution to discontinue her services
    and consequently, the order of discharge was issued in the matter.
13. The respondents have placed heavy reliance on Rules 44, 45, and
    46 of the Rajasthan Judicial Service Rules, 2010, to contend that the
    appellant was a probationer and her probation period has neither been
    extended nor has she been confirmed rightly by the respondents as the
    Full Court has held that she is unfit for confirmation. The respondents
    have also placed reliance upon Rule 14 of the Rajasthan Judicial
    Service Rules, 2010, which deals with “Employment by irregular
    or improper means”. The respondents have further placed reliance
    on Raj Kumar Vs. Union of India (1968) 3 SCR 857; Rajasthan
    Rajya Vidyut Prasaran Nigam Ltd. Vs. Anil Kanwariya (2021)
    10 SCC 136; Hari Singh Mann Vs. State of Punjab AIR 1974 SC
    2263; State of Punjab and another Vs. Sukh Raj Bahadur (1968)
    3 SCR 234; and H.F.Sangati Vs. Registrar General, High Court
    of Karnataka (2001) 3 SCC 117; Rajesh Kohli Vs. High Court of
    Jammu & Kashmir and others (2010) 12 SCC 783; and Rajasthan
    High Court, Jodhpur Vs. Akashdeep Morya & Anr. 2021 INSC
    485 and prayed for dismissal of the writ petition.
86                                                          [2025] 7 S.C.R.

                         Supreme Court Reports


14. Heard learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the
    case file thoroughly.
15. The undisputed facts of the case reveal that the appellant belongs
    to the Scheduled Tribe category and holds a Bachelor degree in
    Arts, Bachelor degree in Law, Bachelor degree in Education and
    Master’s degree in Law. The appellant started her service career
    on 30.12.2014 by joining as a Government Teacher Grade-II in
    the Education Department of the Government of Rajasthan. The
    advertisement was issued on 18.11.2017 inviting applications for the
    Rajasthan Judicial Service Examination – 2017 and the appellant did
    submit her application in the prescribed form for the post in question.
    The appellant was successful in the preliminary examination and it
    is noteworthy to mention here that the appellant was also suffering
    from lymphadenopathy tuberculosis during this period. She was
    successful in the main examination as well and thereafter, was
    called for the interview on 09.10.2018. The appellant submitted her
    resignation vide letter dated 25.10.2018 from the post of Grade-II
    Teacher which was accepted on 28.12.2018. The appellant, at the
    time of interview, submitted a check list of documents provided by
    the Deputy Registrar (Examination) of the Rajasthan High Court, on
    02.11.2018 and the appellant on the said date had resigned from her
    employment and, therefore, she has not mentioned about her being
    in government service in the check list. The final result was declared
    on 04.11.2018 declaring the appellant as a successful candidate.
16. Unfortunately, one Mr. Abhishek Verma filed a complaint against the
    appellant before the Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur and this was the
    triggering factor for the entire action against the appellant herein. The
    appellant was appointed as a Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate by
    an order dated 11.02.2019 on probation for a period of two years
    and she successfully completed one year RJS induction training
    from 06.03.2019 to 07.03.2020. Again, a complaint was filed by one
    Mr. Ram Niwash Meena on 22.03.2019 against the appellant before
    the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jodhpur and based
    upon the complaint of Mr. Ram Niwash Meena, Registrar (Vigilance)
    issued a show cause notice on 17.02.2020. The appellant did submit
    her reply to the show cause notice and an inquiry was held without
    participation of the appellant; however, the inquiry officer granted a
    personal hearing to the appellant. The appellant was not issued any
[2025] 7 S.C.R.                                                          87

                           Pinky Meena v.
     The High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jodhpur & Anr.

     posting order and finally the Full Court based upon the said inquiry
     report arrived at a conclusion to discontinue the appellant from
     service by holding that she is not fit for confirmation in the Rajasthan
     Judicial Service and finally a discharge order was issued against her
     on 29.05.2020. Against the discharge order, the appellant filed a writ
     petition before the High Court, however, the same was dismissed
     which is impugned before this Court.
17. This Court has carefully gone through the show cause notice dated
    17.02.2020 issued to the appellant and a bare perusal of the same
    establishes that misconduct, if any, in respect of obtaining LL.B. and
    B.Ed degree simultaneously relates to the service period prior to being
    a Judicial Officer. Similarly, in respect of LL.M. degree also, she was
    not a Judicial Officer and she was serving as a Teacher Grade-II in
    the Education Department of Government of Rajasthan. So far as
    the allegation with regarding to suppression of material information
    regarding past government service, the appellant submitted
    resignation on 25.10.2018 from the post of Teacher Grade-II and on
    the date of interview i.e. on 02.11.2018, she was required to furnish
    certain information as per the check list and it is a fact that on the
    date of interview, she was no longer a government servant as she
    had tendered her resignation and in those circumstances, there is
    certainly an omission on the part of the appellant in not mentioning
    about her past record of government service.
18. This Court is of the considered opinion that as the appellant had
    submitted her resignation on 25.10.2018 much prior to her interview,
    which was conducted on 02.11.2018, the question of disclosing the
    past government service is certainly not a material irregularity or
    a serious misconduct for which she ought to be discharged from
    service especially when she has successfully completed her training
    without any blemish. Another important aspect of the case is that
    the appellant was suffering from lymphadenopathy tuberculosis
    since March 2018, and she was admitted to the hospital on and
    off and, therefore, the alleged suppression should not come in her
    way leading to discharge from service. This is certainly not a case
    where the appellant has suppressed criminal antecedents, which
    may materially affect her commitment to the judiciary.
19. The appellant has not submitted an NOC from the employer and
    an explanation has rightly been furnished by the appellant before
88                                                           [2025] 7 S.C.R.

                          Supreme Court Reports


      this Court as well as the Inquiry Officer that at the relevant point of
      time when she appeared for the interview and when the result was
      declared, she had submitted her resignation. In the considered opinion
      of this Court, non-disclosure of past government service cannot be
      a ground for discharging the appellant.
20. Rules 44, 45 and 46 of the Rajasthan Judicial Service Rules reads
    as under:
           “44. Probation.- All persons appointed to the service
           in the cadre of Civil Judge and District Judge by direct
           recruitment shall be placed on probation for a period of
           two years:
           Provided that such of them as have previous to their
           appointment to the service officiated on temporary post in
           the service may be permitted by the Appointing Authority on
           the recommendation of the Court to count such officiation
           or temporary service towards the period of probation.
           45. Confirmation.- (1) A probationer appointed to the
           service in the cadre of Civil Judge shall be confirmed in
           his appointment by the Court at the end of his initial or
           extended period of probation, if the Court is satisfied that
           he is fit for confirmation.
           (2) A person appointed to the service in the cadre of
           Senior Civil Judge by promotion shall be substantively
           appointed by the Court in the cadre as and when permanent
           vacancies occur.
           (3) A probationer appointed to the service in the cadre of
           District Judge by direct recruitment shall be confirmed in
           his appointment by the Court at the end of his initial or
           extended period of probation, if the Court is satisfied that
           he is fit for confirmation.
           (4) A person appointed to the service in the cadre of District
           Judge by promotion on the basis of merit-cum-seniority or
           by Limited Competitive Examination shall be confirmed in
           his appointment by the Court on availability of permanent
           vacancies in the cadre.
           46. Unsatisfactory progress during probation and
           extension of probation period.- (1) If it appears to the
[2025] 7 S.C.R.                                                           89

                           Pinky Meena v.
     The High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jodhpur & Anr.

           Court, at any time, during or at the end of the period of
           probation that a member of the service has not made
           sufficient use of the opportunities made available or that he
           has failed to give satisfactory performance, the Appointing
           Authority may, on recommendations of the Court, discharge
           him from service: Provided that the Court may, in special
           cases, for reasons to be recorded in writing, extend the
           period of probation of any member of the service for a
           specified period not exceeding one year.
           (2) An order sanctioning such extension of probation shall
           specify the exact date up to which the extension is granted
           and further specify as to whether the extended period will
           be counted for the purpose of increment.
           (3) If the period of probation is extended on account of
           failure to give satisfactory service, such extension shall
           not count for increments, unless the authority granting the
           extension directs otherwise.
           (4) If a probationer is discharged from service during or
           at the end of the initial or extended period of probation
           under sub-rule (1), he shall not be entitled to any claim
           whatsoever.”
21. Rule 46 deals with unsatisfactory progress during probation and
    extension of probation period. The aforesaid statutory provision of
    law certainly empowers the employer to extend the probation period
    and in case the performance of an employee during the probation
    period is unsatisfactory, it also gives a right to the employer to
    discharge the probationer. It is nobody’s case that the performance
    of the appellant during the probationary period was unsatisfactory. In
    fact, she has successfully completed her training with flying colours
    and, therefore, by no stretch of imagination could her services be
    put to an end in the manner and method it has been done by the
    respondents.
22. The respondents have also placed heavy reliance on Rule 14 of
    the Rajasthan Judicial Service Rules, 2010, which reads as under:
           “14. Employment by irregular or improper means.- A
           candidate who is or has been declared by the Recruiting
           Authority or the Appointing Authority, as the case may
90                                                         [2025] 7 S.C.R.

                        Supreme Court Reports



          be, guilty of impersonation or of submitting fabricated
          or tampered with documents or of making statements
          which are incorrect or false or of suppressing material
          information or using or attempting to use unfair means in
          the examination or interview or otherwise resorting to any
          other irregular or improper means for obtaining admission
          to the examination or appearance at any interview shall, in
          addition to rendering himself liable to criminal prosecution,
          be debarred either permanently or for a specified period,-
          (a) by the Recruiting Authority or the Appointing Authority,
          as the case may be, from admission to any examination or
          appearing at any interview held by the Recruiting Authority
          for selection of candidates, or
          (b) by the Government from employment under the
          Government.”
23. This Court has carefully gone through the aforementioned statutory
    provision of law which deals with employment by irregular or
    improper means. In the present case, at the best, it can be held that
    there was an omission on the part of the appellant in informing the
    employer about her past government service. Further, a reasonable
    explanation has also been provided by the appellant regarding her
    past government service by stating that at the time of submission
    of check list, the appellant was not in government service and,
    therefore, in those circumstance, she was not required to mention
    the same. In the considered opinion of this Court, the appellant has
    been awarded capital punishment for a minor irregularity (omission).
24. The services of a probationer could result either in a confirmation
    in the post or ended by way of termination simpliciter. However, if
    a probationer is terminated from service owing to a misconduct as
    a punishment, the termination would cause a stigma on him. If a
    probationer is unsuitable for a job and has been terminated then
    such a case is non-stigmatic as it is a termination simpliciter. Thus,
    the performance of a probationer has to be considered in order to
    ascertain whether it has been satisfactory or unsatisfactory. If the
    performance of a probationer has been unsatisfactory, he is liable
    to be terminated by the employer without conducting any inquiry. No
    right of hearing is also reserved with the probationer and hence, there
    would be no violation of principles of natural justice in such a case.
[2025] 7 S.C.R.                                                        91

                           Pinky Meena v.
     The High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jodhpur & Anr.

25. As noted, if a termination from service is not visited with any stigma
    and neither are there any civil consequences and nor is founded
    on misconduct, then, it would be a case of termination simpliciter.
    On the other hand, an assessment of remarks pertaining to the
    discharge of duties during the probationary period even without a
    finding of misconduct and termination on the basis of such remarks or
    assessment will be by way of punishment because such remarks or
    assessment would be stigmatic. According to the dictionary meaning,
    stigma is indicative of a blemish, disgrace indicating a deviation from
    a norm. Stigma might be inferred from the references quoted in the
    termination order although the order itself might not contain anything
    offensive. Where there is a discharge from service after prescribed
    probation period was completed and the discharge order contain
    allegations against a probationer and surrounding circumstances also
    showed that discharge was not based solely on the assessment of the
    employee’s work and conduct during probation, the termination was
    held to be stigmatic and punitive vide Jaswantsingh Pratapsingh
    Jadeja vs. Rajkot Municipal Corporation, (2007) 10 SCC 71.
26. Even though a probationer has no right to hold a post, it would not
    imply that the mandate of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution
    could be violated inasmuch as there cannot be any arbitrary or
    discriminatory discharge or an absence of application of mind in the
    matter of assessment of performance and consideration of relevant
    materials. Thus, in deciding whether, in a given case, a termination
    was by way of punishment or not, the courts have to look into the
    substance of the matter and not the form.
27. Further, the order discharging the appellant from service violates
    principles of natural justice, as the appellant was not provided an
    opportunity to be heard during the enquiry that was required to be
    conducted. At this juncture, reliance is placed on Shamsher Singh v.
    State of Punjab (1974) 2 SCC 831, which clarified that:
           “No abstract proposition can be laid down that where
           the services of a probationer are terminated without
           saying anything more in the order of termination than
           that the services are terminated it can never amount to a
           punishment in the facts and circumstances of the case. If
           a probationer is discharged on the ground of misconduct,
           or inefficiency or for similar reason without a proper
92                                                          [2025] 7 S.C.R.

                         Supreme Court Reports


          enquiry and without his getting a reasonable opportunity
          of showing cause against his discharge it may in a given
          case amount of removal from service within the meaning
          of Art. 311 (2) of the Constitution.”
28. To holistically understand women’s effective participation in the
    Judiciary, it is important to look at three main phenomena: (I) the entry
    of women into the legal profession; (II) the retention of women and
    growth of their numbers in the profession; and (III) the advancement
    of women, in numbers, to senior echelons of the profession.
29. Many have stressed that increased diversity within a judiciary, and
    ensuring judges are representative of society, enables the judiciary
    as a whole to better respond to diverse social and individual contexts
    and experiences. It is a recognition of this fact that a greater
    representation of women in the judiciary, would greatly improve the
    overall quality of judicial decision making and this impacts generally
    and also specifically in cases affecting women.
30. Advancing women’s greater participation in the judiciary also plays
    a role in promoting gender equality in broader ways:
          a.    Female judicial appointments, particularly at senior
                levels, can shift gender stereotypes, thereby changing
                attitudes and perceptions as to appropriate roles of
                men and women.
          b.    Women’s visibility as judicial officers can pave the
                way for women’s greater representation in other
                decision-making positions, such as in legislative and
                executive branches of government.
          c.    Higher numbers, and greater visibility, of women
                judges can increase the willingness of women to seek
                justice and enforce their rights through the courts.
31. The country will greatly benefit from a judicial force that is competent,
    committed and most importantly, diverse. The appellant has shown
    great perseverance by fighting societal stigmas and gaining a rich
    education that will ultimately benefit the judicial system and the
    democratic project. This Court is of the opinion in the peculiar facts
    and circumstances of the case that the impugned show cause notice
    as well as the order of discharge deserve to be set aside and are
    accordingly set aside.
[2025] 7 S.C.R.                                                         93

                           Pinky Meena v.
     The High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jodhpur & Anr.

32. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed and the show cause notice dated
    17.02.2020 and the discharge order dated 29.05.2020 are quashed.
    The appellant shall be entitled to reinstatement in service forthwith
    with all consequential benefits, including, fixation of seniority as per
    the merit list in the examination in question, notional fixation of pay,
    except back wages. It is further clarified that the respondent shall
    treat the appellant as to have successfully completed her probation
    period and the appellant shall be treated as a confirmed employee.
33. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.

     Result of the case: Appeal allowed.



     †
         Headnotes prepared by: Divya Pandey