Shubham Gupta vs State Of Rajasthan
2021 Latest Caselaw 13149 Raj

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11421/2021

1. Shubham Gupta S/o Ramesh Chand, Aged About 27 Years, R/o Rajpura Ward, Cabara Advocate Ke Pass, District Baran (Raj.).

2. Pramod Kumar Nagar S/o Bhawani Shankar, Aged About 35 Years, R/o 225 New Colony, Jhalawar, District Jhalawar (Raj.).

3. Ramcharan Odd S/o Prahald, Aged About 26 Years, R/o Parniya Baran, District Baran (Raj.).

----Petitioners Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Principal Secretary, Education Department, Govt. Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.

2. Rajasthan Primary Education Council, Through Its Additional Commissioner, Having Office At Dr. Radha Krishanan Shiksha Sankul Compound, J.l.n. Marg, Jaipur.

3. The Additional State Project Director, Rajasthan School Education Council Jaipur.

4. The Chief District Education Officer, (Elementary Education) Cum Ex Officio District Project Co-Ordinator, Samagra Shiksha Abhiyan, Baran.

5. The Chief District Education Officer, (Elementary Education) Cum Ex Officio District Project Co-Ordinator, Samagra Shiksha Abhiyan, Jhalawar.

6. The Additional District Project Co-Ordinator, Samagra Shiksha Abhiyan, Baran.

7. The Additional District Project Co-Ordinator, Samagra Shiksha Abhiyan, Jhalawar.

                                                                  ----Respondents


For Petitioner(s)          :     Mr. Vikram Singh Bhawala
For Respondent(s)          :


                      JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA
                            Judgment

26/08/2021


                                                                            (2 of 2)                [CW-11421/2021]

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the issue

raised in the present writ petition is identical to S.B Civil Writ

Petition No.10695/2018 (Gopiram Gurjar & Ors. Vs. State of

Rajasthan & Ors.), decided on 16.05.2018 and that similar relief

be granted to the petitioners also.

In the case of Gopiram Gurjar (supra), a Coordinate Bench of

this Court observed as under:-

"It is further contended that for the present; the petitioners would be satisfied, if the State- respondents are directed to decide the representation of the petitioners, within a time frame, in the light of the adjudication in the case of Mukesh Kumar Khatik (supra), which they are ready and willing to address within two weeks hereinafter.

In view of the limited prayer addressed; the instant writ proceedings are closed with a direction to the petitioners to address a comprehensive ventilating the grievances raised in the writ application.

In case, a representation is so addressed within the aforesaid period, the State-respondents are directed to consider and decide the same by a reasoned and speaking order as expeditiously as possible in accordance with law. However, in no case later than ten weeks from the date of receipt of the representation along with a certified copy of this order.

With the observations and directions, as indicated above, the writ application stands disposed of."

In view of the submissions made, the writ petition filed by

the petitioners is disposed of in light of and with similar directions

as given in the case of Gopiram Gurjar (supra).

The stay application also stands disposed of accordingly.

(DINESH MEHTA),J 127-CPGoyal/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)