SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT PRINCIPAL SEAT JODHPUR
STATE OF RAJASTHAN – Appellant
Versus
ANIL BHATT – Respondent
WRW 120/2021



HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT

JODHPUR

S.B. Review Petition (Writ) No. 120/2021

1.

State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Principal Secretary,

Department Of Elementary Education, Government

Secretariat, Rajasthan, Jaipur.

2.

Secretary, Rural Development And Panchayati Raj

Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat,

Jaipur.

3.

Director, Elementary Education, Bikaner.

4.

Deputy Director, Secondary Education, Udaipur Zone,

Udaipur.

5.

District Education Officer, Elementary Education,

Banswara

6.

District Education Officer, Secondary Education,

Banswara.

----Petitioners

Versus

1.

Anil Bhatt S/o Shri Girja Shankar Bhatt, Aged About 40

Years, Vpo Anjana, Teh Garhi, Dist Banswara.

2.

Ashvin Kumar Upadhyay S/o Shri Shivshankar Upadhyay,

Aged About 36 Years, Vpo Anjana, Teh Garhi, Dist

Banswara.

3.

Chandraprakash Jain S/o Shri Jeetmal Jain, Aged About

41 Years, Vpo Joulana, Teh Garhi, Dist Banswara.

4.

Hearsha Shukla D/o Shri Mahendra Kumar Shukla, Aged

About 40 Years, VPO Anjana, Teh Garhi, Dist Banswara.

5.

Kailash Chandra Dodiyar S/o Shri Puniya Dodiyar, Aged

About 39 Years, VPO Anjana, Teh Garhi, Dist Banswara.

6.

Neeraj Trivedi S/o Shri Vasudeo Trivedi, Aged About 44

Years, R/o Opp. Police Chouki, Talwar, Dist Banswara.

7.

Sahendra Yadav S/o Shri Jaydayal Yadav, Aged About 37

Years, VPO Foladpur, Teh Neemrana, Dist Alwar.

8.

Suresh Chandra Damor S/o Shri Shankar Lal Damor,

Aged About 41 Years, R/o Sarkri Bagicha Ka Pass, Garhi,

The Garhi, Dist Banswara.

9.

Vijay Patidar S/o Shri Kishan Lal Patidar, Aged About 39

Years, VPO Joulana Teh Garhi, Dist Banswara.

(2 of 3)

[WRW-120/2021]

10.

Vinod Kumar Ahari S/o Shri Goutam Lal Ahari, Aged

About 40 Years, VPO Chhatari Mala Mohalla, Pratapur,

The Garhi, Dist Banswara.

11.

Sidhesh Kumar Parmar S/o Shri Nanulal Parmar, Aged

About 37 Years, VPO Bori, Teh Garhi, Dist. Banswara.

12.

Beena Dayma D/o Mangala, Aged About 38 Years, VPO

Bori, Teh Garhi, Dist. Banswara.

13.

Narayan Singh Ranawat S/o Shri Shankar Singh Ranawat,

Aged About 42 Years, VPO Arthuna, Teh Arthuna, Dist.

Banswara.

14.

Kritish Bariya S/o Shri Gautam Lal Bariya, Aged About 35

Years, R/o Village Kunwaliya, Post Moti Bassi, The

Arthuna, Dist. Banswara.

----Respondents

For Petitioner(s)

:

Mr. K.K. Bissa, AGC

For Respondent(s)

:

-

JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA

Order

31/03/2022

1.

The defects pointed out by the Registry are overruled.

2.

The present review petition is directed against the order

dated 26.08.2020, passed by this Court in writ petition filed by the

respondents.

3.

A perusal of the order under consideration reveals that

though learned counsel for the petitioners had placed reliance on

the judgment rendered in case of Ramesh Chand Saini & Ors.

Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. : D.B. Civil Writ Petition

No.4253/2019) and order dated 17.05.2018, passed in the case

of Lekhraj Meena & Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. : S.B.

Civil Writ Petition No.10692/2018, but the Court has not

given its verdict about the applicability of the above referred

(3 of 3)

[WRW-120/2021]

judgments, considering that the petitioners had simply sought a

liberty to make a representation before the authorities concerned

to decide their rights in light of the judgments aforesaid.

4.

It is pertinent that while disposing of the writ petition, this

Court has not given any finding about the petitioners’ case being

covered by the judgments relied upon.

5.

Hence, this Court does not find any error apparent on the

face of the record because rights of the petitioners have not been

decided. Obviously, the respondents shall be free to decide

petitioners’ representation in accordance with law while

considering the referred judgments.

6.

The review petition is, therefore, dismissed.

7.

Stay application also stands disposed of accordingly.

(DINESH MEHTA),J

13-Ramesh/-

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top