The Rajasthan High Court has ordered a detailed inquiry into the functioning of the Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal (RCSAT) after a government school teacher alleged that an interim stay order granted in his favour mysteriously disappeared from the official record and was replaced with a different order refusing relief.
Justice Ravi Chirania, while hearing the matter in April, expressed strong reservations about the explanation offered by the Tribunal’s Registrar. The Court described the attempt to attribute the discrepancy to an unidentified clerk as “highly unreasonable” and observed that the claim appeared to be unsupported by the record.
The Court directed the State government to investigate the circumstances surrounding the alleged alteration of records. It further instructed the Secretary of the Department of Personnel to determine whether any clerk was genuinely responsible or whether the individual had been unfairly blamed to shield others from accountability.
The controversy stems from a petition filed by government teacher Sharvan Lal Khorwal, who challenged the cancellation of a promotion that had been granted to him nearly a decade ago.
According to Khorwal, when his appeal came up before the Tribunal on July 15, 2025, the Bench granted interim protection in open court. He also claimed that the Tribunal’s online case status reflected the grant of a stay.
However, matters took an unexpected turn when he later applied for a certified copy of the order. Khorwal alleged that the file instead contained another order dated August 8, 2025, which merely issued notices and declined interim relief. He further contended that the case had not even been listed before the Tribunal on that date.
Claiming that the later order was passed without notice and contrary to what had transpired in court, Khorwal approached the High Court seeking intervention.
Earlier, while examining the allegations, Justice Anand Sharma had observed that the claims raised troubling questions about the Tribunal’s functioning and administration. The Court had consequently directed the Registrar to file an affidavit explaining the circumstances that led to the apparent inconsistency.
When the matter came up again before Justice Chirania, the Registrar maintained that a clerical error had resulted in the stay order being incorrectly reflected. The Court, however, found the explanation lacking, particularly because the affidavit failed to identify the clerk allegedly responsible for the mistake.
Consequently, the High Court ordered an official inquiry and sought a report from the Department of Personnel. It also asked the State government to examine whether disciplinary proceedings should be initiated against the Registrar and any other officials found responsible during the investigation.
The case is scheduled to be taken up again on July 1.
