Usman Gani Rangrej vs State Of Rajasthan (2025:Rj-Jd:11934)
2025 Latest Caselaw 8189 Raj

Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Usman Gani Rangrej vs State Of Rajasthan (2025:Rj-Jd:11934) on 4 March, 2025

Author: Dinesh Mehta

Bench: Dinesh Mehta

[2025:RJ-JD:11934]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2708/2025

Usman Gani Rangrej S/o Raheem Baksh Rangrej, Aged About 63 Years, H.no.- Re-74, Panchwati, Bhilwara, Raj.

----Petitioner Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, Department Of Rural Development And Panchayati Raj, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur, Rajasthan.

2. The Director (Elementary Education), Bikaner, Rajasthan.

3. The District Education Officer (Elementary Education), Bhilwara, Rajasthan.

4. The Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad Bhilwara, Rajasthan.

5. The District Education Officer (Secondary), Bhilwara, (Rajasthan).

----Respondents

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Naved Khan Sindhi For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vaibhav Baug for Mr. N.K.Mehta

JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA

Order

04/03/2025

1. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the

controversy involved in the present writ petition is squarely

covered by the judgment dated 22.03.2022 passed by this Court

in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.3629/2018 : Jai Prakash Vs.

State of Rajasthan & Ors.

2. Learned counsel for the respondents is not in a position to

dispute the aforesaid position of facts and law.

[2025:RJ-JD:11934] (2 of 2) [CW-2708/2025]

3. In view of the aforesaid, the present writ petition is disposed

of with a direction to the petitioner to file a representation before

the competent authority of the respondents along with a certified

copy of the order instant and a web-copy of the judgment in the

case of Jai Prakash (supra) within a period of two weeks from

today.

4. In case, representation is so addressed within the aforesaid

period, the competent authority of the respondents shall consider

and decide the same in accordance with law, including the law laid

down in the case of Jai Prakash (supra) as early as possible

preferably within a period of eight weeks of receiving the

representation.

5. It is made clear that aforesaid direction to decide the

representation has been issued only with a view to ensure

expeditious redressal of petitioner's grievance. The same may not

be construed to be an order to decide the representation in a

particular manner.

6. The stay application also stands disposed of accordingly.

(DINESH MEHTA),J 4-akansha/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)