[2025:RJ-JP:16281] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5340/2025 1. Sourav Jangir S/o Sh. Anandi Lal Jangir, Aged About 19 Years, Resident Of Ward No. 2, Brahmano Ka Mohalla, Kolida, District-Sikar (Rajasthan). 2. Rohit Kumar S/o Sh. Jai Singh, Aged About 21 Years, Resident Of Ward No. 9, Village-Nalpur, Tehsil-Khetri, District-Jhunjhunu (Rajasthan). 3. Harsh S/o Sh. Jale Singh, Aged About 20 Years, Resident Of Ward No. 11, Village-Goth, Tehsil-Buhana, District- Jhunjhunu. 4. Niket Sarda S/o Sh. Nirmal Sarda, Aged About 21 Years, Resident Of Jhanwaro Ki Gali, Kuchaman City, Nawa, District-Nagaur (Rajasthan). ----Petitioners Versus 1. Rajasthan Technical University, Kota Through Its Registrar, Situated At Rawatbhata Road, Kota (Rajasthan). 2. University Department Rajasthan Technical University, Through The Principal, Rajasthan Technical University- Kota, Situated At Rawatbhata Road, Kota (Rajasthan). 3. Office Of The Chief Proctor, University Departments, Through The Chief Proctor, Rajasthan Technical University-Kota, Situated At Rawatbhata Road, Kota (Rajasthan). ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr.David Mehla JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND Order 16/04/2025 1. By way of filing this writ petition, a challenge has been made to the impugned order dated 08.10.2024 by which the petitioners have been suspended for a year. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the aforesaid order has been passed without providing any [2025:RJ-JP:16281] (2 of 3) [CW-5340/2025] opportunity of hearing to the petitioners and the same has resulted in utter violation of principles of natural justice. Counsel submits that the petitioner submitted their respective representations before the Chief Proctor of the University for redressal of their grievances in the month of December, 2024, but in spite of passing of considerable time, till date, their representations have not been decided by the Chief Proctor by passing a reasoned and speaking order. Counsel submits that under the compelling circumstances, the petitioner approached the Vice-Chancellor for redressal of the similar grievances, but no heed has been paid, hence, under these circumstances, interference of this Court is warranted. 3. Heard and considered the submissions made at the Bar and perused the material available on record. 4. Perusal of the record indicates that an Office Order was passed by the Chief Proctor on 08.10.2024 by which the petitioners have been suspended for a year with cancellation of current registration for the respective classes. It appears that aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the petitioners approached his Office, by way of filing respective different representations for redressal of their grievances in the month of December, 2024, but in spite of passing of considerable time, till date, the respective representations have not been decided by him by passing a reasoned and speaking order. 5. In the considered opinion of this Court, when the period of suspension is for a period of one year, it is expected from the Chief Proctor to decide the representations of the petitioners immediately, in spite of sitting over the same. [2025:RJ-JP:16281] (3 of 3) [CW-5340/2025] 6. Considering the factual aspect of the matter, the instant writ petition stands disposed of by issuing direction to the Chief Proctor to decide the representations of the petitioners expeditiously as early as possible, preferably within a period of three weeks, from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order. 7. Stay application and all pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. (ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J Aayush Sharma/188