In a key ruling, the Supreme Court of India reinstated former judicial magistrate Pinky Meena, who was dismissed from Rajasthan Judicial Service in 2020. The court overruled the Rajasthan High Court’s Full Bench decision and directed her reinstatement, though without backwages.
A bench comprising Justices BV Nagarathna and SC Sharma allowed Meena’s appeal and ordered her reinstatement with notional pay fixation. However, the court made it clear she would not be entitled to backwages.
Read also: Arrest of Prof. Ali Khan Mahmudabad: A Case of Misuse of Power and Constitutional Concerns
“It is further clarified that the respondent (High Court) shall take the appellant as to have successfully completed her probation period, and the appellant shall be treated as a confirmed employee,” the Supreme Court ruled.
Background of the Case
Ms. Pinky Meena was appointed as Teacher Grade-II in Rajasthan's Education Department on December 30, 2014. While serving as a teacher, she applied for the Civil Judge (Junior Division) post via an advertisement dated November 18, 2017. After clearing the selection process, she was appointed as a Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate on February 11, 2019.
In February 2020, the Registrar (Vigilance) issued her a show-cause notice. It alleged that she did not disclose her prior teaching job in her Rajasthan Judicial Services (RJS) application. It was also claimed that she violated university norms by pursuing B.Ed. and LL.B. simultaneously and completed an LL.M. degree as a regular student while working.
Read also: CJI BR Gavai Urges Bar Associations to Support Young Lawyers with CSR-Funded Group Insurance
Ms. Meena defended herself, stating she resigned from the teaching position due to illness before joining judicial service. She also said she discontinued her B.Ed. upon realizing the rules. However, the Rajasthan High Court’s Full Bench dismissed her from service in May 2020.
The Supreme Court noted that her resignation from the government job was prior to her judicial appointment. It held that there was no intentional suppression of facts that warranted termination.
“There was no material to conclude that the appellant had the intention to deceive or commit fraud. Mere procedural lapse should not result in such harsh action,” the court observed.
Read also: SC Directs Centre To Notify New Rules For Consumer Forum Appointments; Ensures 5-Year Tenur
With this decision, Ms. Meena is reinstated to service with continuity and confirmation of her probation but will not receive backwages for the period between her termination and reinstatement.
Case Title: Pinky Meena v. The High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jodhpur & Anr., SLP(C) No. 23529/2023
