Dr. Sangeeta Rohila vs The State Of Rajasthan ...
2025 Latest Caselaw 7740 Raj

Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Dr. Sangeeta Rohila vs The State Of Rajasthan ... on 20 February, 2025

Author: Dinesh Mehta

Bench: Dinesh Mehta

[2025:RJ-JD:10228]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4653/2025

Dr. Sangeeta Rohila D/o Ratan Kumar Rohila, Aged About 46 Years, Resident Of Village Adarsh Colony, Churu District Churu (Raj.).

----Petitioner Versus

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

2. The Commissioner, College Education, Shiksha Sankul, Jawahar Lal Nehru Marge, Jaipur.

----Respondents

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Awar Dan Ujjwal For Respondent(s) : Mr. Praveen Khandelwal, AAG with Ms. Yashvi Khandelwal

JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA

Order

20/02/2025

1. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the

petitioner would be satisfied if the competent authority of the

respondents is directed to consider petitioner's' representation

expeditiously in light of the judgment passed by the co-ordinate

Bench of this Court at Jaipur rendered in the case of Ram

Chaturvedi & Ors. vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (S.B. Civil

Writ Petition No. 1474/2023) decided on 28.08.2023.

2. The writ petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner

to file fresh representation(s) alongwith web-copy of the judgment

rendered in the case of Ram Chaturvedi (supra) and certified copy

of the order instant within a period of two weeks from today.

[2025:RJ-JD:10228] (2 of 2) [CW-4653/2025]

3. In case, a representation is so addressed, the competent

authority of the respondents shall consider the same in

accordance with law in light of the judgment rendered in the case

of Ram Chaturvedi (supra) preferably within a period of four

weeks of receipt thereof.

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 36-Taruna/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)