From Appointment to Dismissal & Reinstatement: The Journey of Rajasthan’s Tribal Judge Pinky Meena— Why Supreme Court Said Female Judicial Appointments Can Shift Gender Stereotypes

New Delhi- In a landmark ruling, the Supreme Court has reinstated Pinky Meena, a Scheduled Tribe (ST) woman from Rajasthan, as a Civil Judge, overturning the Rajasthan High Court’s decision to dismiss her from service. The Court, in its judgment delivered on May 22, 2025, quashed the show cause notice dated February 17, 2020, and the discharge order dated May 29, 2020, issued by the Rajasthan High Court, declaring them violative of natural justice and constitutional principles.

The verdict not only reinstates Meena with all consequential benefits, including seniority and notional pay fixation (excluding back wages), but also emphasizes the critical role of women’s representation in the judiciary for promoting gender equality and improving judicial decision-making.

Background of the Case

Pinky Meena, hailing from the Scheduled Tribe community, holds degrees in Arts (BA), Education (B.Ed.), Law (LL.B.), and a Master’s in Law (LL.M.). She began her career as a Grade-II Teacher in the Rajasthan Education Department on December 30, 2014. In response to an advertisement issued by the Rajasthan High Court on November 18, 2017, for the post of Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate, Meena applied and excelled in the preliminary examination, main examination, and interview, securing the 4th rank in the ST (Women) category.

She was issued an appointment letter on February 11, 2019, and joined as a trainee in the Rajasthan Judicial Service (RJS) on March 6, 2019. Meena successfully completed her one-year induction training by March 7, 2020, with exemplary performance.

However, complaints filed by Abhishek Verma and Ram Niwash Meena triggered an inquiry against her. On February 17, 2020, the Rajasthan High Court issued a show cause notice under Rule 16 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958, alleging irregularities in her educational qualifications and non-disclosure of her previous government employment.

Based on an inquiry report, the Full Court of the Rajasthan High Court resolved to discharge Meena from service on May 29, 2020, citing her unsuitability as a probationer. Her subsequent writ petition challenging the discharge was dismissed by the Rajasthan High Court on August 24, 2023, prompting her to appeal to the Supreme Court through a Special Leave Petition (SLP) No. 23529/2023.

Allegations Against Pinky Meena and Her Defense

The Rajasthan High Court’s show cause notice listed five allegations against Meena:

1. Simultaneous Pursuit of LL.B. and B.Ed.: The High Court alleged that Meena fraudulently obtained both degrees in the same year, violating University of Rajasthan’s Ordinance 168-A. Meena clarified that the LL.B. first-year examination is not considered a “main examination” under the ordinance.

2. LL.M. Attendance While Employed: It was claimed that Meena pursued her LL.M. as a regular student while employed as a teacher, showing fraudulent attendance. Meena responded that LL.M. programs typically do not require regular classes.

3. Non-Disclosure of Previous Employment: The High Court alleged that Meena concealed her prior teaching job in the RJS application checklist. Meena countered that she had resigned on October 25, 2018, before the interview on November 2, 2018, and the checklist did not explicitly require such disclosure.

4. Lack of No Objection Certificate (NOC): The High Court claimed Meena did not obtain an NOC from the Education Department for the RJS examination. Meena argued that the RJS Rules, 2010, do not mandate an NOC.

5. Concealment of RJS Appointment: It was alleged that Meena hid her RJS selection from both the High Court and the Education Department. Meena clarified that she was not in government service at the time of joining RJS, negating the need for disclosure.

Supreme Court’s Verdict and Key Observations

The Supreme Court bench, comprising Justices Satish Chandra Sharma and B.V. Nagarathna, meticulously examined the case and delivered a 21-page judgment that not only reinstated Meena but also highlighted systemic issues in judicial accountability and gender representation. The Court ruled that the discharge order was “stigmatic” and violated principles of natural justice, as Meena was not given a fair opportunity to defend herself during the inquiry process.

The court said, "The appellant has shown great perseverance by fighting societal stigmas and gaining a rich education that will ultimately benefit the judicial system and the democratic project".

The Court observed, “ In the present case, at the best, it can be held that there was an omission on the part of the appellant in informing the employer about her past government service. Further, a reasonable explanation has also been provided by the appellant regarding her past government service by stating that at the time of submission of check list, the appellant was not in government service and, therefore, in those circumstance, she was not required to mention the same. In the considered opinion of this Court, the appellant has been awarded capital punishment for a minor irregularity (omission).”

The bench noted that Meena had resigned from her teaching position on October 25, 2018, before her interview on November 2, 2018, and thus was not a government employee at the time of her application submission, rendering the allegation of non-disclosure less severe.

Addressing the allegations of pursuing B.Ed. and LL.B. simultaneously and obtaining an LL.M. while employed, the Court noted that these actions occurred during her tenure as a teacher, not as a judicial officer, and no action was taken by the Education Department. The Court stated, “The alleged misconduct relates to the service period prior to being a Judicial Officer. Such allegations cannot be a ground for her discharge from judicial service, especially when she successfully completed her training without any blemish.”

The Court also found the inquiry process flawed, noting, " Further, the order discharging the appellant from service violates principles of natural justice, as the appellant was not provided an opportunity to be heard during the enquiry that was required to be conducted." The inquiry officer conducted the investigation behind her back, and the report was not furnished to her, constituting a clear violation of natural justice.” Citing the precedent of Shamsher Singh v. State of Punjab (1974), the Court emphasized that a probationer’s termination based on misconduct without proper inquiry and opportunity for defense violates Article 311(2) of the Constitution.

Emphasis on Gender Equality and Judicial Diversity

The Supreme Court underscored the broader implications of the case for gender equality and diversity in the judiciary. The apex court stated:

Advancing women’s greater participation in the judiciary also plays a role in promoting gender equality in broader ways:

a. Female judicial appointments, particularly at senior levels, can shift gender stereotypes, thereby changing attitudes and perceptions as to appropriate roles of men and women.

b. Women’s visibility as judicial officers can pave the way for women’s greater representation in other decision-making positions, such as in legislative and executive branches of government.

c. Higher numbers, and greater visibility, of women judges can increase the willingness of women to seek justice and enforce their rights through the courts.

The court also stated, " Many have stressed that increased diversity within a judiciary, and ensuring judges are representative of society, enablesthe judiciary as a whole to better respond to diverse social and individual contexts and experiences. It is a recognition of this fact that a greater representation of women in the judiciary, would greatly improve the overall quality of judicial decision making and this impacts generally and also specifically in cases affecting women."

The Court emphasized that Meena’s reinstatement aligns with the goal of fostering a “competent, committed, and most importantly, diverse” judicial force, which benefits the democratic framework and society at large.