[2025:RJ-JP:2931] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 326/2004 1. Yadram S/o Shri Makhanlal Yadav, aged about 48 years, resident of Gram & Post Karanikot Police Station Mandawar, District Alwar. presently posted at Police Station Bansur, District Alwar. 2. Fateh Singh S/o Shri Indra Singh, aged about 38 years, resident of Gram & Post sundrawali, Police Station-Nagar, District Bharatpur, Presently Posted At Police Training School Kishangarh, District, Ajmer. 3. Shyam Sunder S/o Sadu Ram, Aged About 49 Years, Resident of Baskripal Nagar, Police Station, Kishangarh Bas, District Ajmer. Presently Posted At P.S. Ramgarh District Alwar. 4. Ram Singh S/o Shri Gisha Ram Yadav, aged about 50 Years, Resident of village Manjra, Police Station Madnan, Presently Posted At Police Line, Distt. Alwar. 5. Ramswaroop Gurjar S/o Late Shri Dhuni Ram, aged about 48 years, r/o Nibhor, Police Station Behror, District Alwar, Presently Posted At P.S. M.I.A. Alwar. 6. Narasi Ram S/o Shri Bahadur Ram Gurjar, aged about 49 Years, Resident of Jaghatkala, Police Station Bansur, District Alwar, Presently Posted At P.S. Rani. 7. Phool Singh S/o Shri Khem Chand aged about 50 years, resident of Gram Mundanwara, P.S. Mandawar, Presently Posted At Police Line Dist. Alwar. ----Petitioners Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan Through Principal Secretary, Department Of Home, Government Of Rajasthan, Government Secretariat, Jaipur Raj. 2. Secretary To The Government, Department Of Personnel, Government Secretariat, Jaipur Raj. 3. Director General Police, Police Headquarter, Jalebi Chowk, Jaipur. 4. Inspector General, Bhartpur Range, District Bharatpur. 5. Superintendent Of Police, District Alwar. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Abhay Singh for Mr. R. N. Mathur, Sr. Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vinod Kumar Gupta HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDESH BANSAL [2025:RJ-JP:2931] (2 of 2) [CW-326/2004] Order 21/01/2025 1. Counsel appearing on behalf of petitioners pleads no instructions on account of not turning up by the petitioners in his office to pursue the writ petition as much as their file too is not tracing. 2. From the record, it appears that instant writ petition was jointly filed by as many as 7 petitioners way back on 17.01.2004, seeking direction against the respondents to grant promotion to petitioners on the post of ASI from the date when other two candidates were sent to undergo promotion cadre course. 3. It appears that petitioners, with passage of time, have lost interest to pursue the writ petition. 4. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed in default and for non-prosecution. 5. Any other pending application, if any, stands disposed of. (SUDESH BANSAL),J TN/54