Dismissed¶24

Hem Singh Rajput, S/O. Late Shri Ganga Singh Rajput v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC23 Jan 2026WMAP/558/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

D.B. Writ Miscellaneous Application No. 558/2025 (WMAP), High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan, Jaipur Bench; petitioner Hem Singh Rajput sought recall of the order dated 12.11.2025 passed in D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 620/2025 (PWD matter, age-50 finding); application dismissed on 23/01/2026; bench: Acting Chief Justice Sanjeev Prakash Sharma and Justice Baljinder Singh Sandhu; petitioner represented by Ms. Harshita Sharma.

What did the court decide?

None; the misc. application seeking recall of the order dated 12.11.2025 was dismissed. ¶24

Hem Singh Rajput, S/O. Late Shri Ganga Singh Rajput Vs State of Rajasthan — Rajasthan HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

¶1

[2026:RJ-JP:3305-DB]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

D.B. Writ Miscellaneous Application No. 558/2025

¶4

Hem Singh Rajput, S/o. Late Shri Ganga Singh Rajput, Aged About 49 Years, R/o Village Post Ramgarh, Tehsil Mahwa, Distt. Dausa, Rajasthan.

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary To The Government, Public Works Department, Secretariat, Jaipur.

¶8

Chief Engineer And Additional Secretary, Public Works Department, Jaipur.

¶9

Superintending Engineer, Public Works Department, Sub Division Mahwa, Distt. Dausa.

¶10

Executive Engineer, Public Works Department, Sub Division Mahwa, District Dausa.

¶11

Assistant Engineer, Public Works Department, Sub Division Mahwa, District Dausa.

¶12

----Respondents

¶13

For Petitioner(s)	: Ms.	Harshita Sharma
For Respondent(s)	: ---

¶14

HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MR. SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BALJINDER SINGH SANDHU

¶15

Order

¶16

23/01/2026

¶17

The present misc. application has been preferred by the petitioner for recalling of the order dated 12.11.2025 passed by this Court in D.B. Special Appeal Writ No.620/2025.

¶18

We have considered the averments made in the application. The order was passed by this Court after looking into the merits of

[2026:RJ-JP:3305-DB]

[WMAP-558/2025]

(2 of 2)

the case and upon finding that the petitioner had already attained the age of 50 years.

¶23

In view of the same, there is no ground for reviewing or recalling of the order.