Rajasthan HC Orders Enquiry Against RCSAT Registrar Over Alleged Backdated Order and Missing Stay

The Rajasthan High Court found the RCSAT Registrar's affidavit unsatisfactory and directed the Secretary, Department of Personnel to enquire whether a clerk was made a scapegoat for a stay order that appeared on the tribunal's website but never materialised on its file.

The Rajasthan High Court, Bench at Jaipur, has directed the Secretary, Department of Personnel, Government of Rajasthan to conduct an enquiry into the conduct of the Registrar of the Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal (RCSAT) after finding his court-filed affidavit “highly unreasonable and false on the face of the record.” Justice Ravi Chirania, sitting singly, passed the direction on 17 April 2026 in a writ petition filed by Sharvan Lal Khorwal, a Senior Teacher who was reverted from the post of Lecturer after a Departmental Promotion Committee exercise. The case has drawn the court's attention not only to the petitioner's service grievance but to a more troubling allegation: that the RCSAT recorded a different order on its file from what was allegedly pronounced in open court, on a date when the matter was not even listed before it.

The Petitioner's Service Grievance

Sharvan Lal Khorwal was initially appointed as a Senior Teacher Grade-II and posted in District Udaipur. In 2015, the respondent-Department transferred him to Ajmer by order dated 20 July 2015, citing administrative exigency. The transfer was not on his request.

Following a DPC conducted in 2016-17, the Department promoted him to the post of Lecturer against vacancies of the year 2015-16 by order dated 16 July 2016. He joined the promoted post immediately. Years later, when a fresh DPC was conducted for the post of Vice Principal, the Department instead issued an order dated 17 June 2025 reverting him to the post from which he had been promoted in 2016. No opportunity of hearing was given before the reversion.

Khorwal challenged the reversion order before the RCSAT. His case before the High Court is that the seniority ground used to cancel his 2016 promotion is unjustified because the change of region that affected his seniority was not his doing — it was the Department's own administrative decision in 2015.

Justice Chirania, in the order dated 9 April 2026, agreed with this reading at the prima facie stage. The court observed that since the change of region was not on the petitioner's request but was directed by the respondent-Department, the seniority-based ground for cancelling the 2016 promotion appeared unjustified, particularly when no hearing was afforded. The RCSAT, while examining the appeal, passed its order dated 8 August 2025 without considering this fact.

The Allegation of a Backdated Tribunal Order

The more serious dimension of the case concerns what allegedly happened inside the RCSAT before the writ petition was filed. According to the petitioner's sworn averments in the writ petition, the appeal came up before the Tribunal on 15 July 2025. On that date, the Tribunal allegedly allowed the stay application after hearing arguments at length and stayed the effect of the reversion order by oral orders pronounced in open court, in the presence of lawyers and parties. The RCSAT's own website reflected that a stay had been granted on 15 July 2025, and the petitioner annexed a screenshot of the website as well as the cause list for that date.

The petitioner then states that he was shocked to discover that instead of any order dated 15 July 2025 appearing on the file, a different order dated 8 August 2025 had been recorded. On 8 August 2025, the appeal was not listed before the Tribunal. The order of that date, as per the petitioner, merely issued notices to respondents and declined to grant any stay — directly contradicting what was allegedly pronounced in open court on 15 July 2025. The petitioner characterised this as an order passed on a back-date, on a date when the matter was not even listed, behind his back.

These allegations were placed before a co-ordinate Bench of the High Court, which by order dated 6 March 2026 found them serious enough to direct the RCSAT Registrar to file a specific affidavit explaining the functioning of the Tribunal in light of the allegations. Notice was also issued to the Registrar of the RCSAT. The co-ordinate Bench was presided over by Justice Anand Sharma.

The RCSAT Registrar's Affidavit and the Court's Reaction

In compliance with the 6 March 2026 direction, the RCSAT Registrar filed an affidavit dated 27 March 2026 and forwarded it to the Registrar (Judicial) by letter of the same date.

Justice Chirania, who took up the matter thereafter, was unimpressed. In the order dated 9 April 2026, the court noted that the affidavit was not justified and that the facts stated in it were not satisfactory. The Registrar had attempted to shift the burden onto a clerk, claiming the clerk had wrongly recorded the grant of stay in the appeal in the cause list. The court found this explanation problematic on two counts: the concerned clerk had not been named in the affidavit, and the justification therefore did not appear correct or satisfactory.

The court directed the Registrar to remain present before it on the next date of hearing and listed the matter for 16 April 2026. It also directed the Registrar (Judicial) to send a copy of the order to the RCSAT Registrar.

When the matter came up on 17 April 2026, the court went further. Justice Chirania characterised the affidavit as “highly unreasonable and false on the face of the record.” The court directed the Secretary, Department of Personnel, Government of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur to conduct an enquiry into the issue, specifically examining the affidavit filed by the Registrar before the High Court.

Scope of the Directed Enquiry

The enquiry directed by the court has a specific focus. The Secretary, Department of Personnel is to determine whether the conduct of the Registrar is as he represented to the court. If the enquiry finds otherwise, the court directed that necessary disciplinary action be taken against the Registrar and the concerned clerk.

The court also directed the Secretary to find out whether the clerk is at all involved in the matter or whether he has been named as a scapegoat only. This direction reflects the court's concern that the unnamed clerk may have been introduced into the affidavit to deflect responsibility from the Registrar.

The enquiry report, along with the State's reply to the writ petition, is to be filed by the Additional Advocate General on the next date of hearing. The Additional Advocate General, Mr. Manoj Sharma, had on 17 April 2026 sought four weeks' time to file the reply, which the court granted.

Interim Stay on the Reversion Order

Separately, by the order dated 9 April 2026, the court had already stayed the operation of the reversion order dated 17 June 2025 in favour of the petitioner during the pendency of the writ petition. This interim protection was granted after the court found, prima facie, that the cancellation of the 2016 promotion on seniority grounds — when the change of region was the Department's own act — appeared unjustified, and that the RCSAT had not considered this aspect while passing its order dated 8 August 2025.

Order

By order dated 17 April 2026, Justice Ravi Chirania directed the Secretary, Department of Personnel, Government of Rajasthan to conduct an enquiry into the conduct of the RCSAT Registrar, with specific reference to the affidavit filed before the court. The Secretary is to determine whether the unnamed clerk was genuinely involved or was named to shield the Registrar, and to take disciplinary action against the Registrar and the clerk if the enquiry so warrants. The enquiry report and the State's reply to the writ petition are to be placed before the court on the next date. The matter is listed for 18 May 2026. The interim stay on the reversion order dated 17 June 2025 granted on 9 April 2026 continues.