Saturday, 16, May, 2026
 
 
 
Expand O P Jindal Global University
 
  
  
 
 
 

State Of Rajasthan vs Smt. Meena Meghwal
2022 Latest Caselaw 3102 Raj

Citation : 2022 Latest Caselaw 3102 Raj
Judgement Date : 28 February, 2022

Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
State Of Rajasthan vs Smt. Meena Meghwal on 28 February, 2022
Bench: Dinesh Mehta

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Review Petition (Writ) No. 130/2021

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

2. The Secretary, Education Department, Govt. Secretariat, Jaipur, (Raj).

3. Director, Secondary Education, Bikaner, District Bikaner, Rajasthan.

4. Director, Elementary Education, Bikaner, District Bikaner, Rajasthan.

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

6. The District Education Officer (Secondary), District Dungarpur, Rajasthan.

7. The District Education Officer (Elementary), District Banswara, Rajasthan.

8. The District Education Officer (Secondary), District Banswara, Rajasthan.

9. The District Education Officer (Elementary), District Udaipur, Rajasthan.

10. The District Education Officer (Secondary), District Udaipur, Rajasthan.

11. The District Education Officer (Elementary), District Pratapgarh, Rajasthan.

12. The District Education Officer (Secondary), District Pratapgarh, Rajasthan.

13. The District Education Officer (Elementary), District Rajsamand, Rajasthan.

14. The District Education Officer (Secondary), District Rajsamand, Rajasthan.

----Petitioners Versus

1. Smt. Meena Meghwal D/o Vardi Chandra, Aged About 42 Years, 26, Kalka Mata Road, Ganesh Nagar, Pahda, District Udaipur, Rajasthan.

2. Dinesh Kumar Joshi, Aged About 42 Years, Viage Post Bagidoura, Tehsil Bagidoura, District Banswara, Rajasthan

- 327601.

3. Vandana Ninama, Aged About 39 Years, Village Post Sagwa, Tehsil Sajjangarh, District Banswara, Rajasthan.

4. Hitesh Kumar Trivedi, Aged About 42 Years, Sector-9, Savina, District Udaipur, Rajasthan.

5. Ashok Kumar Verma, Aged About 42 Years, Plot No.36, Avadhpuri, Mahesh Nagar, District Jaipur, Rajasthan.

(2 of 3) [WRW-130/2021]

6. Vinod Kumar Chandela, Aged About 41 Years, Village Post Garhi Sawai Ram, Tehsil Rani, District Alwar, Rajasthan.

7. Kheldas Meena, Aged About 41 Years, Village Post Ajnoti, Tehsil Sawai Madhopur, District Sawai Madhopur, Rajasthan.

8. Batti Lal Meena, Aged About 50 Years, Village Bilopa, Post Dekawa, Tehsil Sawai Madhopur, District Sawai Madhopur, Rajasthan.

9. Jitendra Lot, Aged About 40 Years, 199-200, I-Block, Double Storey, Virat Nagar, Sector-14, District Udaipur, Rajasthan.

10. Narayan Singh, Aged About 40 Years, Dapatta Bheem, District Rajsamand, 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 04.09.2020, 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

given its verdict about the applicability of the above referred

judgments, considering that the petitioners had simply sought a

(3 of 3) [WRW-130/2021]

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 4-pooja/-

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 : IJJ

 

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

 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter