Disposed

Daya Chand Yadav and Ors. v. State of Raj and Ors.

Rajasthan HC8 Mar 2018CW/4891/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Rajasthan closed these writ proceedings proceeding on counsel's submission that the controversy is resolved by a coordinate bench order known as the Sunita Rathore case. The Court directed petitioners to submit a representation enclosing that order, with the State mandated to decide within two months to address the matter to its satisfaction.

What did the court decide?

Writ application closed; petitioners directed to submit representation; State directed to decide within two months.

Daya Chand Yadav and Ors. Vs State of Raj and Ors. — Service and Employment | Rajasthan HC (2018)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

S.B. Civil Writs No. 4891/2018

¶3

Daya Chand Yadav S/o Ramprasad Yadava, By Caste Yadav, Aged About 45 Years, R/o Vill. Majri Khola, Post Padmada Khurd, Tehsil Mundawar, District Alwar.

¶4

Mrs. Wahidan D/o Paltu Khan, W/o Mohmmad Iliyas Khan, By Caste Mave, Aged About 39 Years, R/o D-41, Suryanagar, Alwar, District Alwar.

¶5

Rajjak Khan S/o Ashraf Khan, By Caste Mave, Aged About 53 Years, R/o Vill. Gwalda, Post Gwalda, Tehsil Tijara, District Alwar.

¶6

Mubeen Khan S/o Juhru Khan, By Caste Mave, Aged About 46 Years, R/o Vill. Shekhpur, Kishangarh-Bass, District Alwar.

¶7

----Petitioners

¶8

Versus

¶9

The State Of Rajasthan Through Its Principal Secretary, Panchayati Raj Department, Govt. Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.

¶10

Director, Elementary Education, Rajasthan, Bikaner (Raj.) 3. District Education Officer (Elementary Education), Alwar (Raj.).

¶11

Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Alwar.

¶12

----Respondents

¶13

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Vineet Kumar Dixit For Respondent(s) :

¶14

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VEERENDR SINGH SIRADHANA

¶15

Order

¶16

08/03/2018

¶17

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 :

¶18

(2 of 2)

¶19

[CW-4891/2018]

¶20

Smt. Sunita Rathore v. State of Rajasthan & Ors., vide order dated 22^nd November, 2011.

¶21

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 are ready and willing to address within two weeks hereinafter.

¶22

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).

¶23

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 two months from the date of receipt of the representation along with a certified copy of this order.

¶24

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

¶25

(VEERENDR SINGH SIRADHANA)J.

¶26

SS/212

Daya Chand Yadav and Ors. v. State of Raj and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Daya Chand Yadav and Ors. 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

Harkesh Vs State of Rajasthan and Anr.

Rohitash Singh Vs Ashok Singh

Kunwar Singh Vs State of Rajasthan and Ors.

Kishore Vs State of Rajasthan through P.P.

Santosh Kumari Vs State of Raj and Ors.

Vishnu Kumar Meena Vs State of Raj and Ors.