The court said, "Pinky Meena has proved her merit in the Rajasthan Judicial Service Examination while fighting social stigma and completing her education under difficult circumstances. Her dismissal is akin to a 'death sentence' given for a minor irregularity (omission to hide information)."
New Delhi- The Supreme Court, while giving a historic verdict in an important case of Rajasthan High Court, has provided great relief to Pinky Meena, belonging to the tribal community, against her dismissal from the services of a civil judge. In its judgment given on 22 May 2025, the Supreme Court quashed the order of 24 August 2023 passed by the Rajasthan High Court, in which Pinky Meena’s writ petition was dismissed.
Along with this, the Supreme Court also quashed the show cause notice issued on 17 February 2020 and the dismissal order of 29 May 2020. In this decision, Pinky Meena has been directed to be reinstated in service with immediate effect and to provide all consequential benefits such as seniority fixation and pay fixation (excluding the previous salary). Background of the case Pinky Meena had got selected for the post of Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate in Rajasthan Judicial Service (RJS) on the basis of her educational qualification and hard work. She has a degree of Bachelor of Arts (BA), Bachelor of Education (B.Ed), Bachelor of Laws (LLB) and Master of Laws (LLM). She started serving as a second class teacher in the Education Department of Rajasthan Government from 30 December 2014. On 18 November 2017, an advertisement was issued by the Rajasthan High Court for the post of Civil Judge, in which Pinky applied and cleared the preliminary examination, main examination and interview. On 11 February 2019, she was issued an appointment letter as Civil Judge, and she started training from 6 March 2019, which she completed with excellent performance on 7 March 2020. However, after her appointment, complaints were filed against her by persons named Abhishek Verma and Ram Niwas Meena, based on which the Rajasthan High Court issued a show cause notice against her and later terminated her services.
High Court’s decision and appeal in the Supreme Court
The Rajasthan High Court on 24 August 2023 dismissed the writ petition of Pinky Meena, upholding the show cause notice and dismissal order. The High Court in its judgment held that Pinky had concealed information regarding her previous government job and educational qualifications as a teacher, which amounted to irregularity under Rule 14 of the Rajasthan Judicial Service Rules, 2010. Against this, Pinky filed a Special Leave Petition (SLP) in the Supreme Court, which was heard by a bench of Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice B.V. Nagarathna.
Allegations against Pinky Meena and her reply
The Rajasthan High Court had levelled five main allegations against Pinky:
Pursuing LLB and B.Ed simultaneously: The High Court alleged that Pinky obtained LLB and B.Ed degrees in the same year, which is not permissible under Rajasthan University Ordinance 168-A. Pinky responded by saying that the LLB first year examination is not considered the main examination of the degree.
Fraud in attendance during LLM: The High Court claimed that Pinky obtained the LLM degree as a regular student while serving as a teacher, which is improper. Pinky clarified that regular classes for LLM are not usually held.
Concealing information about previous job: The High Court said that Pinky concealed information about her government job at the time of interview. Pinky replied that at the time of interview (November 2, 2018) she had already resigned, and there was no column in the checklist to provide such information.
Absence of NOC: The High Court alleged that Pinky did not obtain a No Objection Certificate (NOC) from the Education Department for the RJS exam. Pinky said that there is no such condition in the RJS rules.
Concealment of appointment information: The High Court claimed that Pinky concealed information about her RJS appointment from both the Education Department and the High Court. Pinky responded that she was not in government service at the time of appointment, so there was no need to provide any information.
The Supreme Court examined these allegations and found that all these allegations relate to the time when Pinky was not in judicial service but was working in the Education Department. The Court held that no action was taken by the Education Department in these matters, and it is not appropriate to make them the basis for her dismissal in judicial service.
What the Supreme Court said
The Supreme Court, in its 21-page judgment, not only ordered the reinstatement of Pinky Meena in service, but also made it clear that her dismissal violates the principles of natural justice and Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. The court made several important observations in its judgment, which underline the gravity and social context of the case.
The court said, “Pinky Meena has proved her worth in the Rajasthan Judicial Service Examination while fighting social stigma and completing her education under difficult circumstances. Her dismissal is akin to a ‘death sentence’ for a minor irregularity (omission to conceal information).” The court also held that Pinky did not disclose information about her previous government job, but it is not a serious misconduct, as she had resigned from her job on 25 October 2018, and at the time of the interview (2 November 2018) she was not in government service.
The court stressed on the violation of the principles of natural justice and said, “Pinky was not given an opportunity of a fair hearing during the investigation. The inquiry officer conducted the investigation behind her back, and the investigation report was not provided to her. This is a clear violation of the principles of natural justice.” Citing the case of Shamsher Singh vs State of Punjab (1974), the Court clarified that if the termination of service of a probationer is done on the ground of misconduct, it is mandatory to give him an opportunity for proper inquiry and hearing, otherwise it would be considered a violation of Article 311(2) of the Constitution.
Court’s observations on social and gender equality
The Supreme Court in its judgment laid special emphasis on the importance of women’s participation and gender equality in the judiciary. The Court said, “Greater participation of women in the judiciary not only improves the quality of judicial decisions, but it also helps in breaking gender stereotypes and enforcing women’s rights in society.”
The Court also noted that Pinky Meena has proven her worth by overcoming social and economic barriers, and her dismissal not only harms her personal career, but it also affects the broader goal of diversity and inclusiveness in the judiciary.
The Court also noted that Pinky Meena has proven her worth by overcoming social and economic barriers, and her dismissal not only harms her personal career, but it also affects the broader goal of diversity and inclusiveness in the judiciary. The court also said, “Diversity and representation of women in the judiciary enables it to better understand and respond to the different social and personal contexts of society. This influences judicial decisions not only in general, but in matters relating to women in particular.”
Courtesy : Geetha Sunil Pillai, Hindi News