The Rajasthan High Court recently ordered an inquiry into the functioning of the Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal (RCSAT) after a government teacher alleged that a stay order granted in his favour against the cancellation of his promotion was later replaced on the record by a different order denying him relief [Sharvan Lal Khorwal v. State of Rajasthan].
By an April 17 order, Justice Ravi Chirania directed the State government to conduct an inquiry after finding the Tribunal Registrar’s explanation for the discrepancy to be unsatisfactory.
The Court said the Registrar’s attempt to blame an unnamed clerk for the issue was “highly unreasonable” and appeared to be “false on the face of the record.”
The Court also directed the Secretary of the State's Department of Personnel, to ascertain whether the unnamed clerk was actually involved in the matter or had merely been made a scapegoat.
The matter concerned a petition filed by a government school teacher, one Sharvan Lal Khorwal, who challenged an order cancelling a promotion that had been granted to him nearly nine years earlier.
Khorwal alleged that when his challenge came up before the RCSAT on July 15, 2025, the tribunal heard the matter and granted a stay in open court. According to him, the tribunal’s website also reflected that interim protection had been granted.
However, when he later sought a certified copy of the order, he allegedly discovered that the case file contained a different order dated August 8, 2025, which merely issued notices and declined the grant of any interim relief. He further claimed that the matter had not even been listed before the Tribunal on August 8.
Aggrieved, Khorwal approached the Rajasthan High Court, alleging that the August 8 order had been passed behind his back and was completely illegal and malicious.
Taking note of the allegations, a Bench comprising Justice Anand Sharma had in March had observed that the claims raised serious questions regarding the functioning of the Tribunal and directed its Registrar to file an affidavit explaining the circumstances.
In the later hearing in April, Justice Chirania found the explanation given by the Registrar unsatisfactory. The Registrar had claimed that the grant of stay had been wrongly reflected in the cause list due to an error committed by a clerk.
Observing that the clerk had not even been identified in the affidavit, the Court directed the Department of Personnel to conduct an inquiry and submit a report on the next date of hearing.
It also asked the State to consider disciplinary action against the Registrar and any other officials found responsible.
The matter is next listed on July 1, according to information available on the High Court's website.
[Read Order]