Rajender Prashad Dhawan vs State Of Rajasthan (2025:Rj-Jd:6753)
2025 Latest Caselaw 6446 Raj

Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Rajender Prashad Dhawan vs State Of Rajasthan (2025:Rj-Jd:6753) on 4 February, 2025

Author: Dinesh Mehta

Bench: Dinesh Mehta

[2025:RJ-JD:6753]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1086/2025

1. Rajender Prashad Dhawan S/o Shri Ram Kishandhawan, Aged About 58 Years, R/o 80 Block, Ward No. 10, Sri Vijaynagar, District Sriganganagar.

2. Mangal Singh S/o Shri Trilok Singh, Aged About 57 Years, R/o Village 73 Rb, Po Fajuwala, Tehsil Raisinghnagar, District Sriganganagar.

----Petitioners Versus

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

2. Director, Secondary Education Department, Bikaner.

3. Director, Elementary Education Department, Bikaner.

4. Joint Director, School Education, District Bikaner.

5. District Education Officer (Headquarter), Elementary Education Department, Sri Ganganagar.

6. District Education Officer (Headquarter), Secondary Education Department, Sri Ganganagar.

----Respondents

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Vishal Jangid For Respondent(s) : Mr. N.K. Mehta, Dy.G.C.

JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA

Order

04/02/2025

1. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the

petitioners would be satisfied if the competent authority of the

respondents is directed to consider petitioners' representation in

light of the judgment dated 14.08.2019, passed by co-ordinate

Bench of this Court in the case of Madan Lal Vs. State of

Rajasthan & Ors : S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.3593/2016.

[2025:RJ-JD:6753] (2 of 2) [CW-1086/2025]

2. The present writ petition is, therefore, disposed of with a

direction to the petitioners to file a representation along with

certified copy of the order instant and a web copy of the order in

the case of Madan Lal (supra) within a period of four weeks.

3. In case representation is so addressed, the respondents shall

consider the same in accordance with law within a period of eight

weeks of receiving the same.

4. 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.

5. The stay application also stands disposed of accordingly.

(DINESH MEHTA),J 9-Mak/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)