Dhola Ram Bola vs State Of Rajasthan
2021 Latest Caselaw 10396 Raj

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6179/2021

1. Dhola Ram Bola W/o Bhakhara Ram, Aged About 31 Years, Vpo Gora, Tehsil Sedva District Barmer.

2. Kuashala Ram S/o Mota Ram Siyag, Aged About 32 Years, Vpo Taratara, Tehsil Chouhtan District Barmer.

3. Suresh Kumawat S/o Banshi Lal, Aged About 28 Years, Vpo Lawana, Post Bhana, District Rajsamand.

4. Prakash Sihag S/o Dalip, Aged About 28 Years, Vpo Goluwala Sihagan, Tehsil Pilibanga District Hanumangarh.

5. Nema Ram Solanki S/o Gopa Ram, Aged About 27 Years, Vpo Doli, Tehsil Luni, District Jodhpur.

6. Saraswati Jat D/o Bodu Ram, Aged About 23 Years, Lodhsar, Tehsil Sujangarh, District Churu.

----Petitioners Versus

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

2. The Director, Secondary Education, Rajasthan, Bikaner.

3. Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Rajasthan, Ajmer, Through The Secretary.

----Respondents

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Inderjeet Yadav For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vishal Jangid

JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA

Order

08/07/2021

(1) Mr. Yadav, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners

submits that the petitioners would be satisfied if respondent-RPSC

and State Government is directed to consider their representation

in the light of the judgment dated 3.11.2017 passed by Division

(2 of 2) [CW-6179/2021]

Bench of this Court in DBSAW No.1178/2017 : Rajesh Choudhary

& Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr. as many seats are lying

vacant due to non-joining and resignation.

(2) The present writ petition is therefore, disposed of with a

direction to the petitioners to file representation alongwith

certified copy of the order instant and photostat copy of the

Division Bench judgment in the case of Rajesh Choudhary (supra)

within a period of two weeks.

(3) On receipt of the representation, the respondent-RPSC and

the competent authority of the respondent-State shall do the

needful in accordance with law as early as possible preferably

within a period of eight weeks thereafter.

(4) It is made clear that aforesaid direction to decide the

petitioners' representation has been issued only with a view to

ensure expeditious redressal of petitioners' grievance. The same

may not be construed to be an order to decide the representation

in a particular manner.

(5) The stay application also stands disposed of accordingly.

(DINESH MEHTA),J

79-CPGoyal/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)