Satish Kumar Dhannawat vs State Of Rajasthan ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 4641 Raj

[2023/RJJD/015268]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12502/2021

1. Satish Kumar Dhannawat S/o Shri Mahaveer Kumar Jain, Aged About 38 Years, Resident Of Kolyari-Phalasia, Jhadol, District Udaipur (Raj.)

2. Dileep Singh Rathod S/o Shri Shiv Singh Rathod, Aged About 30 Years, Resident Of Navaghara, Tokar, Tehsil Semari, District Udaipur (Raj.)

3. Manoj Purbia S/o Shri Daya Lal Purbia, Aged About 31 Years, Resident Of Khakhar, District Udaipur (Raj.)

4. Piyush Soni S/o Shri Kailash Chandra Soni, Aged About 29 Years, Resident Of Sadar Bazar, Phalasia, Udaipur, District Udaipur (Raj.)

5. Jagdish Dangi S/o Shri Mohan Lal Dangi, Aged About 34 Years, Resident Of Boliya Wali, Bhagal, Lakarwas, District Udaipur (Raj.)

6. Maan Singh Sisodiya S/o Shri Shiv Dan Sisodiya, Aged About 37 Years, Resident Of Aadarsh Colony, Teetardi, District Udaipur (Raj.)

7. Kaushal Daya Rawat S/o Shri Jugal Kishore Daya, Aged About 36 Years, Resident Of 361, Jain Colony, University Main Road, C/o Vishnu Priya General Store, Girwa, Udaipur, District Udaipur (Raj.)

8. Lakhmi Chand Patel S/o Shri Pema Patel, Aged About 27 Years, Resident Of 65, Bharod Kalan Bavdi, Pratapgarh, Dist - Udaipur (Raj.)

----Petitioners Versus

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

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

3. Joint Director, Udaipur Zone, Udaipur (Raj.)

4. District Education Officer, Secondary Education, Udaipur, District Udaipur (Raj.)

----Respondents

[2023/RJJD/015268] (2 of 3) [CW-12502/2021]

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. O.P. Sangwa For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sarwan Kumar for Mr. Hemant Choudhary

JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA

Order

15/05/2023

I.A. No. 01/2023:

1. For the reasons stated, the application seeking early listing

of the matter is allowed.

2. The matter is taken up for consideration today itself.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that during the

pendency of the writ petition, the respondents have given

promotion to the petitioners vide order dated 30.11.2023,

however, making them effective from the date of order(s).

4. Learned counsel submits that the petitioners would prefer to

pursue their cause for grant of notional promotion from the date

persons junior to them were granted promotion, by way of a

representation.

5. In view of above submission, the writ petition is disposed of

with the direction to the petitioner(s) to file representation(s)

alongwith certified copy of the order instant and judgment(s) (if

any).

6. In case, representation is preferred within a period of four

weeks from today, the competent authority shall consider the

same and do the needful in accordance with law, as early as

possible preferably within a period of twelve weeks of receiving

the same.

[2023/RJJD/015268] (3 of 3) [CW-12502/2021]

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

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.

8. If the representation is decided in a manner prejudicial to

the petitioners' interest, the petitioners' right to take legal remedy

shall stand reserved.

9. The stay application also stands disposed of accordingly.

(DINESH MEHTA),J 89-Mak/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)