Kedar Lal Meena vs State Of Rajasthan (2025:Rj-Jd:17729)
2025 Latest Caselaw 11194 Raj

Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Kedar Lal Meena vs State Of Rajasthan (2025:Rj-Jd:17729) on 7 April, 2025

[2025:RJ-JD:17729]

      HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
                       JODHPUR
                 S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7173/2025

1.       Kedar Lal Meena S/o Ghisya Lal Meena, Aged About 59
         Years, R/o Khod Ki Dhani, Raisana, Tehsil Nadoti, Dist.
         Karauli, Raj.
2.       Ram Kishor Yadav S/o Daya Ram Yadav, Aged About 53
         Years, R/o Dhani Palpur, District Alwar, Raj.
                                                                     ----Petitioners
                                      Versus
1.       State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, Department
         Of    Education,        Government            Of      Rajasthan,    Jaipur,
         Rajasthan.
2.       Director, Secondary Education, Bikaner.
3.       Director, Elementary Education, Bikaner.
4.       The Joint Director Secondary Education, Ajmer.
5.       The District Education Officer (Elementary / Secondary
         Education), Nagaur.
6.       The District Education Officer (Elementary / Secondary
         Education), Didwana- Kuchaman.
                                                                   ----Respondents


For Petitioner(s)            :    Mr. Gajendra Singh.
For Respondent(s)            :


               HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN MONGA

Order (Oral)

07/04/2025

1. At the very outset, learned counsel for the petitioners relies

on a judgment rendered in Omprakash & Ors. Vs. State of

Rajasthan & Ors.: SBCWP No.21214/2014, decided on

21.11.2017 by a Coordinate Bench of this Court at Jaipur and

states that instead of deciding the controversy afresh by this

Court, petitioners be permitted to file a fresh representation

before the competent authority and the competent authority be

[2025:RJ-JD:17729] (2 of 2) [CW-7173/2025]

directed to decided the same by passing appropriate order, in

accordance with law, keeping in view the aforesaid judgment.

2. Request seems to be fair.

3. Given the nature of order which is being passed, no

prejudice would be caused to the respondents and, therefore, the

requirement of issuance of notice is dispensed with as no return is

required to be filed by them.

4. In the aforesaid premise, without commenting on the merits

of the case, the writ petition is disposed of with a liberty to the

petitioners to file a fresh representation, which shall be gone into

by the competent authority and appropriate administrative order

shall be passed in accordance with law.

5. Needless to say that the competent authority shall go

through the judgment relied upon by learned counsel for the

petitioners as mentioned hereinabove and apply its independent

mind on the applicability of the same before passing any order.

6. Needful be done as expeditiously as possible.

7. It is made clear that the direction to consider the

representation shall not be construed as an expression of any

opinion, in any manner.

(ARUN MONGA),J 15-Jitender/Sumit/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)