Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
State Of Rajasthan vs Nathu Ram Prajapat on 28 February, 2022
Bench: Dinesh Mehta
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Review Petition (Writ) No. 129/2021
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, Department
Of Rural And Panchayati Raj, Government Of Rajasthan,
Jaipur, Rajasthan.
2. The Secretary, Department Of Education, Government Of
Rajasthan, Jaipur, Rajasthan.
3. The Director, Secondary Education, Bikaner, District
Bikaner, Rajasthan.
4. The Director, Elementary Education, Bikaner, District
Bikaner, Rajasthan.
5. The District Education Officer (Headquarter), Secondary
Education, Nagaur, District Nagaur, Rajasthan.
6. The District Education Officer (Headquarter), Elementary
Education, Nagaur, District Nagaur, Rajasthan.
7. The District Education Officer (Headquarter), Secondary
Education, Jalore, District Jalore, Rajasthan.
8. The District Education Officer (Headquarter), Elementary
Education, Jalore, District Jalore, Rajasthan.
9. The District Education Officer (Headquarter), Secondary
Education, Bikaner, District Bikaner, Rajasthan.
10. The District Education Officer (Headquarter), Elementary
Education, Bikaner, District Bikaner, Rajasthan.
11. The District Education Officer (Headquarter), Secondary
Education, Udaipur, District Udaipur, Rajasthan.
12. The District Education Officer (Headquarter), Elementary
Education, Udaipur, District Udaipur, Rajasthan.
13. The District Education Officer (Headquarter), Secondary
Education, Hanumangarh, District Hanumangarh,
Rajasthan.
14. The District Education Officer (Headquarter), Elementary
Education, Hanumangarh, District Hanumangarh,
Rajasthan.
15. The District Education Officer (Headquarter), Secondary
Education, Churu, District Churu, Rajasthan.
16. The District Education Officer (Headquarter), Elementary
Education, Churu, District Churu, Rajasthan.
17. The District Education Officer (Headquarter), Secondary
Education, Sriganganagar, District Sriganganagar,
Rajasthan.
18. The District Education Officer (Headquarter), Elementary
Education, Sriganganagar, District Sriganganagar,
Rajasthan.
----Petitioners
Versus
1. Nathu Ram Prajapat S/o Prahlad Ram, Aged About 36
(2 of 4) [WRW-129/2021]
Years, Village Post Tankla, Tehsil And District Nagaur,
Rajasthan.
2. Kanwar Lal Prajapat, Aged About 39 Years, Village Post
Tankla, Tehsil And District Nagaur, Rajasthan.
3. Dinesh Kumar, Aged About 38 Years, Village Post
Chuntisara, Tehsil And District Nagaur, Rajasthan.
4. Ram Prasad Godara, Aged About 36 Years, Village
Berawas Post Tadas, Tehsil Khinwsar, District Nagaur,
Rajasthan.
5. Mahipal, Aged About 40 Years, Village Post Bher, Tehsil
Khinwsar, District Nagaur, Rajasthan.
6. Subhash Chandra, Aged About 37 Years, Village Post
Chawandia, Tehsil Khinwsar, District Nagaur, Rajasthan.
7. Mangna Ram, Aged About 44 Years, Village Post Acheena,
Tehsil Khinwsar, District Nagaur, Rajasthan.
8. Oma Ram, Aged About 39 Years, Village Hempura Post
Birloka, Tehsil Khinwsar, District Nagaur, Rajasthan.
9. Badaria Suresh Kumar, Aged About 36 Years, Village Post
Shankhwas, Tehsil Mundwa, District Nagaur, Rajasthan.
10. Prahalad Ram, Aged About 41 Years, Village Post
Bhakrod, District Nagaur, Rajasthan.
11. Omprakash Bhakal, Aged About 47 Years, 226 Mirdho Ka
Bass, Village Post Bhakrod, District Nagaur, Rajasthan.
12. Achala Ram Saran, Aged About 46 Years, 20 Saranon Ki
Dhani, Bhaduon Ki Dhaniya, Khinwsar, District Nagaur,
Rajasthan.
13. Bhugana Ram, Aged About 43 Years, Village Post
Somana, Tehsil Jayal, District Nagaur, Rajasthan.
14. Prem Prakash, Aged About 37 Years, Village Jakhaniya,
Post Kalri, Tehsil And District Nagaur, Rajasthan.
15. Kesha Ram, Aged About 38 Years, Indas Road, Village
Post Gogelao, District 5 Nagaur, Rajasthan.
16. Bhera Ram, Aged About 37 Years, Indas Road, Village
Post Gogelao, District Nagaur, Rajasthan.
17. Sawai Singh Limba, Aged About 42 Years, Village Post
Tankla, Tehsil And District Nagaur, Rajasthan.
18. Rakesh Kumar, Aged About 40 Years, Village Golyana Post
Chirana, District Jhunjhunu, Rajasthan.
19. Dinesh Rathore, Aged About 40 Years, Near Old Post
Office, Ward No. 15, Sangriya, District Hanumangarh,
Rajasthan.
20. Dilip Singh Chauhan, Aged About 43 Years, Near Durga
Mata Mandir, Industrial Area, Rani Bazar, District Bikaner,
Rajasthan.
21. Narayan Singh, Aged About 50 Years, A-21, Street No. 4
Laxmi Vihar Colony Sagar Road Bikaner, District Bikaner,
Rajasthan.
22. Sita Ram, Aged About 45 Years, Village Sangita Post
(3 of 4) [WRW-129/2021]
Padampura Suratgarh, District Sriganganagar, Rajasthan.
23. Mukesh Kumar, Aged About 41 Years, Ward No. 5 Bijli
Daftar Ke Pass, Canal Colony Road Sangaria, District
Hanumangarh, Rajasthan.
24. Rajneesh Kumar Goswami, Aged About 44 Years, H No.-
178 Ward No. 14 Rathi Chauk, Ladies Market Sangaria,
District Hanumangarh, Rajasthan.
25. Mahendar Kumar, Aged About 45 Years, Valmiki Mohalla,
Ward No. 3, Sangaria, District Hanumangarh, Rajasthan.
26. Dewaki Nandan Swami, Aged About 43 Years, Village Post
Ghantel, District Churu, Rajasthan.
27. Vinod Chauhan, Aged About 38 Years, Ward No. 12 Near
Old Post Office, Anupgarh, District Sriganganagar,
Rajasthan.
28. Jagriti Swami, Aged About 37 Years, Ward No. 10,
Anupgarh, District Sriganganagar, Rajasthan.
29. Pooja Sidana, Aged About 35 Years, Near Ware House,
Ward No. 8, Anupgarh, District Sriganganagar, Rajasthan.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Kamal Kishore Bissa
JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA
Order
28/02/2022
1. The defects pointed out by the Registry are overruled.
2. The present review petition is directed against the order
dated 10.08.2020, passed by this Court in writ petition filed by the
respondents.
3. A perusal of the order under consideration reveals that
though learned counsel for the petitioners had placed reliance on
the judgment rendered in case of Ramesh Chand Saini & Ors.
Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. : D.B. Civil Writ Petition
No.4253/2019) and order dated 17.05.2018, passed in the case
of Lekhraj Meena & Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. : S.B.
Civil Writ Petition No.10692/2018, but the Court has not
(4 of 4) [WRW-129/2021]
given its verdict about the applicability of the above referred
judgments, considering that the petitioners had simply sought a
liberty to make a representation before the authorities concerned
to decide their rights in light of the judgments aforesaid.
4. It is pertinent that while disposing of the writ petition, this
Court has not given any finding about the petitioners' case being
covered by the judgments relied upon.
5. Hence, this Court does not find any error apparent on the
face of the record because rights of the petitioners have not been
decided. Obviously, the respondents shall be free to decide
petitioners' representation in accordance with law while
considering the referred judgments.
6. The review petition is, therefore, dismissed.
7. Stay application also stands disposed of accordingly.
(DINESH MEHTA),J
3-pooja/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
