Disposed

Suman v. State of Raj and Ors.

Rajasthan HC2 Feb 2018CW/2369/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Rajasthan Bench at Jaipur disposed of a writ petition wherein petitioner sought quashing or relief regarding service/education benefits. Since a coordinate bench had already adjudicated the controversy, the court closed proceedings, directing the petitioner to submit a detailed representation to State respondents within two weeks.

What did the court decide?

Direction to petitioner to submit a detailed representation enclosed with the coordinate bench's order within two weeks for the State respondents to decide within four weeks.

Suman Vs State of Raj and Ors. — Education and Admissions | Rajasthan HC (2018)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2369 / 2018

¶3

Suman D/o Sitaram Dangi, Aged About 40 Years, R/o Plot No. 1/216, Housing Board, Jhunjhunu, Rajasthan.

¶4

----Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

The State of Rajasthan Through Principal Education Secretary, Government Secretariat, Jaipur.

¶7

The Director, Elementary Education, Rajasthan, Bikaner.

¶8

The District Elementary Education Officer (Primary), Jaipur.

¶9

The Chief Executive Officer District Education Officer-cumAdditional Chief Executive Officer (Elementary Education ), Zila Parishad, Jaipur.

¶10

----Respondents

¶11

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ram Pratap Saini

¶12

For Respondent(s) :

¶13

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VEERENDR SINGH SIRADHANA

¶14

Order

¶15

02/02/2018

¶16

Learned counsel for the petitioners, at the very outset, submits that the controversy raised in the instant writ application stands resolved in view of the adjudication made by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in S.B. Civil Writ petition Number 8722/2010 : Smt. Sunita Rathore v. State of Rajasthan & Ors., vide order dated 22^nd November, 2011.

¶17

It is further contended that the petitioners would be satisfied, if the State-respondents are directed to decide the representation of the petitioners, within a time frame, which they

¶18

(2 of 2)

¶19

[CW-2369/2018]

¶20

are ready and willing to address within two weeks hereinafter.

¶21

In view of the limited prayer addressed; the instant writ proceedings are closed with a direction to the petitioners to address a comprehensive representation enclosing a copy of the order in the case of Sunita Rathore (supra).

¶22

In case, a representation is so addressed within the aforesaid period, the State-respondents are directed to consider and decide the same by a reasoned and speaking order as expeditiously as possible in accordance with law. However, in no case later than four weeks from the date of receipt of the representation along with a certified copy of this order.

¶23

With the observations and directions, as indicated above, the writ application stands disposed off.

¶24

(VEERENDR SINGH SIRADHANA)J.

¶25

SS/263

Suman v. State of Raj and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Suman v. State of Raj and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

State Vs Shiv Kumar Sharma

Smt Kamla Vs State of Rajasthan through Pp

State Vs Ajij

Radhey Shyam Sharma and Anr. Vs State of Raj and Ors.

Alwar Sahkari Bhoomi Vikas Bank Ltd. Vs Shimbhu

State of Rajasthan Vs Raju Lal