The State Of Rajasthan vs Smt. Ramesh Kanwar
2022 Latest Caselaw 4882 Raj

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 469/2021

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

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

3. The District Elementary Education, Nagaur

4. The Project Officer (Ssa), Elementary Education, Nagaur.

5. The Director, Elementary Education Council, Rajasthan, Jaipur.

----Appellants Versus

1. Smt. Ramesh Kanwar W/o Ajaypal Singh, Aged About 38 Years, B/c Rajput, R/o Ward No. 8, Nawad, Makrana, Tehsil Makrana, Dist. Nagaur (Rajasthan)

2. Smt. Sajna W/o Birma Ram, Aged About 38 Years, B/c Meghwal, R/o Village Nawad, Makrana, Tehsil Makrana, Dist. Nagaur (Raj.).

3. Smt. Bimla Devi W/o Nanda Ram, Aged About 43 Years, By Caste Meghwal, R/o Village Minda, Dist. Nagaur (Rajasthan)

4. Smt. Sita Devi D/o Bhanwara Ram, Aged About 38 Years, B/c Rana, R/o Village Jijot, District Nagaur (Rajasthan)

5. Smt. Nena Devi D/o Luna Ram, Aged About 36 Years, By Caste Bawari, R/o Village Khakholi, Dist. Nagaur.

6. Smt. Vimla Devi D/o Sharwan Ram, Aged About 35 Years, B/c Bawari, R/o Village Sabalpura, Dist. Nagaur (Rajasthan)

7. Smt. Santosh Devi W/o Kisturmal, Aged About 40 Years, B/c Bawari, R/o Village Sabalpura, Dist. Nagaur (Rajasthan)

8. Kisturmal S/o Late Shri Arjun Ram, Aged About 50 Years, B/c Bawari, R/o Village Sabalpura, Dist. Nagaur (Rajasthan)

9. Birma Ram S/o Mala Ram, Aged About 39 Years, B/c Meghwal, R/o Village Naawd, Makrana, Tehsil Makrana, Dist Nagaur (Rajasthan)

(2 of 2) [SAW-469/2021]

----Respondents

For Appellant(s) : Mr,. P.R. Singh through VC For Respondent(s) : --

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MEHTA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR BHARWANI

Order

31/03/2022

Office objection is overruled.

The learned Single Judge has required the appellants

(respondents therein) to decide the representation of the original

petitioner within the stipulated time. In the process, a reference

is also made to the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of

State of Punjab and others vs. Jagjit Singh and others

[(2017) 1 SCC 148].

It is true that the said order was passed without hearing the

present appellants (respondents therein). However, we do not find

it necessary to entertain this appeal only on that ground since

what the authorities are required under the impugned order of the

learned Single Judge is to decide the representation of the original

petitioner. There are no directives that the aforesaid decision in

the case of Jagjit Singh (supra) is applicable or not and the same

must be applied. The authorities must consider the representation

and if the request is not accepted, communicate the decision with

brief reasons thereof.

With this clarification, the appeal is disposed of.

(VINOD KUMAR BHARWANI),J (SANDEEP MEHTA),J 5-Sudhir Asopa/Devesh/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)