Citation : 2025 Latest Caselaw 4991 Raj
Judgement Date : 21 January, 2025
[2025:RJ-JD:3874]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1137/2025
1. Sohan Ram S/o Sh. Beenja Ram, Aged About 39 Years, R/
o Village Post - Dedaji Ka Oran Dhandhiya, Dist. Jodhpur,
(Raj.).
2. Manoj Kumar Sharma S/o Sh. Phool Chand Sharma, Aged
About 42 Years, R/o Village Post - 149, Ward No. 04,
Shym Kund Ke Pas, Khatu Shyamji, District Sikar, (Raj.).
3. Kheta Ram S/o Sh. Sanvata Ram, Aged About 42 Years,
R/o Village Post - Vishnu Nagar, Siyago Ki Dhani, Tehsil
Luni, District Jodhpur, (Raj.).
----Petitioners
Versus
1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through The Additional Chief
Secretary, School Education, Department And Language
And Library Department And Panchayati Raj (Elementary
Education) Department, Rajasthan, Jaipur.
2. The Director, Secondary Education, Rajasthan, Bikaner.
3. The Director, Elementary Education And Panchayati Raj
Department, Rajasthan, Bikaner.
4. The District Education Officer, Headquarter, Elementary
Education, District Jodhpur, Rajasthan.
5. The District Education Officer, Headquarter, Elementary
Education, District Phalodi, Rajasthan.
6. The District Education Officer, Headquarter, Secondary
Education, District Jodhpur, Rajasthan.
7. The District Education Officer, Headquarter, District
Phalodi, Rajasthan.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. O.P. Sangwa.
For Respondent(s) :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN MONGA
Order 21/01/2025
1. At the very outset, learned counsel for the petitioners relies
on a judgment rendered in Dashrath Singh & Ors. Vs. State of
Rajasthan & Ors.: S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.13935/2023,
decided on 18.09.2023 by a Coordinate Bench of this Court, 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:3874] (2 of 2) [CW-1137/2025]
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 23-Sumit/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
Publish Your Article
Campus Ambassador
Media Partner
Campus Buzz
LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026
LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!