Monday, 04, May, 2026
 
 
 
Expand O P Jindal Global University
 
  
  
 
 
 

Kaushalya Sharma vs The State Of Rajasthan
2021 Latest Caselaw 7360 Raj

Citation : 2021 Latest Caselaw 7360 Raj
Judgement Date : 16 March, 2021

Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Kaushalya Sharma vs The State Of Rajasthan on 16 March, 2021
Bench: Dinesh Mehta

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9833/2020

Kaushalya Sharma D/o Shri Nand Lal Manmiya, Aged About 64 Years, R/o- Nai Nagri, Mandal, District- Bhilwara (Raj.).

----Petitioner Versus

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

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

3. The Director, Elementary Education, Bikaner (Rajasthan)

4. The District Secondary Education Officer, Bhilwara (Rajasthan).

5. The District Elementary Education Officer, Bhilwara (Rajasthan)

----Respondents

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Jayant Mahecha for Mr. Sudhir Saruparia For Respondent(s) :

JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA

Order

16/03/2021

1. Learned counsel submits that requisite Court fee has been

paid.

2. After arguing for some time, Mr. Mehecha, learned counsel

for the petitioner submits that the petitioner would feel satisfied if

the respondents are directed to consider her representation, which

she would be filing (within a period of 15 days from today) in the

light of Division Bench judgment dated 7.7.2017 rendered in the

case of State of Rajasthan Vs. Smt. Meera Devi & Anr. (DBSAW

No.340/2013).

(2 of 2) [CW-9833/2020]

3. The writ petition is, therefore, disposed of with a direction to

the petitioner to file representation ventilating her grievance

alongwith a copy of the judgment dated 7.7.2017 rendered in the

case of Smt. Meera Devi (supra) and a certified copy of the order

instant within a period of two weeks from today.

4. If such representation is so addressed, the competent

authority shall consider the same and do the needful in

accordance with law within a period of six weeks thereafter.

5. It is made clear that aforesaid direction to decide the

petitioner's representation has been issued only with a view to

ensure expeditious redressal of petitioner's grievance. The same

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

in a particular manner.

6. The stay application also stands disposed of accordingly.

(DINESH MEHTA),J 186-Rahul/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)

 
Download the LatestLaws.com Mobile App
 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter
 

Publish Your Article

 

Campus Ambassador

 

Media Partner

 

Campus Buzz

 

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent Apply Now!
 

LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026

 

LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!

 
 

LatestLaws Partner Event : Smt. Nirmala Devi Bam Memorial International Moot Court Competition

 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter