Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Kalu Ram vs The State Of Rajasthan ... on 17 January, 2025
[2025:RJ-JD:3191]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 811/2025
1. Kalu Ram S/o Shri Hiralal Kharadi, Aged About 54 Years,
Resident Of Village And Post Badliya, Post, Amja, Dist.-
Banswara (Raj.).
2. Rajendra Dodiyar S/o Shri Laleng Dodiyar, Aged About 50
Years, Resident Of Village And Post Ward No.11, Indra
Colony, Natawara, Gopinath Ka Garha, Dist.-Banswara
(Raj.).
3. Sunanda Damor W/o Shri Rajendra Kumar Damor, Aged
About 46 Years, Resident Of Village And Post Ward No.1,
Mordi, Tehsil Garhi, Dist.- Banswara (Raj.).
4. Magan Lal Charpota S/o Shri Gotam Lal Charpota, Aged
About 48 Years, Resident Of Village And Post Ward No.13,
Patela Jolana, Dist.-Banswara (Raj.).
----Petitioners
Versus
1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary,
Department Of Rural And Panchayati Raj, Government Of
Rajasthan, Jaipur, Rajasthan.
2. The Secretary, Department Of Education, Government Of
Rajasthan, Jaipur, Rajasthan.
3. The Director, Elementary Education, Bikaner, District
Bikaner, Rajasthan.
4. The Director, Secondary Education, Bikaner, District
Bikaner, Rajasthan.
5. District Education Officer (Elementary Education),
Udaipur.
6. District Education Officer (Secondary Education), Udaipur.
7. District Education Officer (Elementary Education),
Banswara.
8. District Education Officer (Secondary Education),
Banswara.
9. District Education Officer (Elementary Education),
Rajsamand.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Bheru Lal Jat.
For Respondent(s) :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN MONGA
Order (Oral)
17/01/2025
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
[2025:RJ-JD:3191] (2 of 2) [CW-811/2025]
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
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
16-/Jitender//-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
