Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Rajasthan · body

2025 DAILYLAW 14316 (RAJ)

PUSHPA KUMARI D/O GIRDHARI LAL v. THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN

CW/6288/2025 · 2025-04-29

Sudesh Bansal

Transfer Petitionbody2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

[2025:RJ-JP:17979] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6288/2025 1. Pushpa Kumari D/o Girdhari Lal, Aged About 38 Years, R/o Plot No. 5, Kalyan Colony, Jagatpura, Jaipur, Rajasthan. 2. Sunita Choudhary D/o Pusa Ram, Aged About 25 Years, R/o Village Rampura, Post Heerani, District Nagaur, Rajasthan. 3. Beena Devi Bunker D/o Phool Chand Bunker, Aged About 34 Years, R/o Vpo Jawanpura, Via Bhabru, Kotputli- Behror, Rajasthan. 4. Shyamveer S/o Sundar Singh, Aged About 41 Years, R/o Vpo Barwara, Tehsil Nadbai, District Bhartpur, Rajasthan. 5. Lalita Devi D/o Mohan Lal, Aged About 39 Years, R/o Vpo Galar, Tehsil Sidhmukh, District Churu, Rajasthan. 6. Ashish Kumar S/o Kumbha Ram, Aged About 32 Years, R/o Vpo Godas, Tehsil Taranagar, District Churu, Rajasthan. 7. Prema Ram S/o Bhanwar Lal, Aged About 26 Years, R/o Ward No. 05/07, Village Kahira, Chitana, Bikaner, Rajasthan. 8. Neeraj Devi D/o Dal Chand, Aged About 31 Years, R/o Village Ajroda, Post Bansi, Tehsil Weir, District Bharatpur, Rajasthan. 9. Aliyas Khan S/o Darab Khan, Aged About 37 Years, R/o Village Pandoo Khan, Post Kheduli, Tehsil Merta City, District Nagaur, Rajasthan. 10. Doongar Ram Patel S/o Trilok Ram, Aged About 29 Years, R/o 383, Sutharo Ka Bas, Mogra Kalan, Luni, Jodhpur, Rajasthan. 11. Sushil Kumar S/o Pokar Ram Dewna, Aged About 40 Years, R/o Village Tarpura, Post Khakholi, Tehsil Moolasar, District Didwana-Kuchaman, Rajasthan. 12. Jagmohan Meena S/o Pooran Chand Meena, Aged About 35 Years, R/o Village Tikari Jafran, Post Salimpur, Tehsil Mahwa, District Dausa, Rajasthan. ----Petitioners Versus [2025:RJ-JP:17979] (2 of 3) [CW-6288/2025] 1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary, Department Of School Education, Government Secretariat, Jaipur, Rajasthan. 2. The Director, Secondary Education, Rajasthan, Bikaner. 3. Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Through Its Secretary, Ajmer. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Aamir Khan for Mr. Ram Pratap Saini For Respondent(s) : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDESH BANSAL Order 29/04/2025 1. Petitioners have raised an issue that by operation of the pick- up list (Waiting List) by RPSC, petitioners be considered for grant of appointment on the post of Senior Teacher Grade II Subject Hindi (Non TSP Area), pursuant to advertisement dated 05.04.2022. 2. Indisputably, the RPSC declined to operate the pick-up list second time vide order dated 26.09.2024 stating inter alia that the pick-up list has already been operated on 25.01.2024 and thereafter, the period of six months has expired. 3. Petitioners preferred S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.18507/2024, questioning the order dated 26.09.2024 but that writ petition came to be disposed of vide order dated 16.01.2025 with liberty to petitioners to submit a representation before the respondents and the respondents were directed to consider the same. However, it is noteworthy that the order dated 26.09.2024, declining to [2025:RJ-JP:17979] (3 of 3) [CW-6288/2025] operate the pick-up list second time, was neither addressed nor quashed. 4. Petitioners, pursuant to the liberty granted under order dated 16.01.2025, again submitted a representation which has been dismissed vide order impugned dated 28.02.2025, assigning the same reasons stated in the previous order dated 26.09.2024. 5. This Court is of considered opinion that the order dated 28.02.2025 does not give rise to a fresh cause of action and same is mere repetition of the previous order dated 26.09.2024, against which the previous writ petition being S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.18507/2024 has already been disposed of without quashing the same. Thus, this second round of litigation is unwarranted and can’t be entertained. 6. Counsel for the petitioners, after arguing the writ petition, seeks permission to withdraw the writ petition. 7. Permission is granted. 8. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn. 9. Stay application and any other pending application, if any, also stand disposed of. (SUDESH BANSAL),J TN/11