Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Rajasthan · body

2025 DAILYLAW 15107 (RAJ)

RAJESH PAHADIYA S/O SHRI NARSI LAL PAHADIYA v. THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN

CW/6973/2019 · 2025-02-10

Anoop Kumar Dhand

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.6521/2019 Shaitan Singh Meena S/o Shri Moduji Meena, Aged About 40 Years, R/o Village Mal Ki Jhupadiya, Post Biletha, Tehsil Jahajpur, District Bhilwara (Raj.) ----Petitioner Versus 1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary To The Govt. Education Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur. 2. Director, Secondary Education, Rajasthan, Bikaner. 3. District Education Officer, Secondary Education- Pali. ----Respondents Connected With S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.6973/2019 Rajesh Pahadiya S/o Shri Narsi Lal Pahadiya, Aged About 41 Years, R/o Near Talab, Village And Post Chauth Ka Barwada, District Sawaimadhopur (Raj.) ----Petitioner Versus 1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary To The Govt. Education Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur. 2. Director, Secondary Education, Rajasthan, Bikaner 3. District Education Officer, Secondary Education, Sawaimadhopur ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Hemant Kumar for Mr. R.D. Meena For Respondent(s) : Ms. Anjum Parveen Salawat for Ms. Namita Parihar, Dy. GC JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND Order 10/02/2025 1. By way of filing these writ petitions, a prayer has been made for issuing directions to the respondents to grant notional benefits (2 of 2) [CW-6521/2019] to the petitioners with effect from the date of appointments given to other selected candidates through the same selection process. 2. Upon perusal of the entire writ petition and the contents thereof, this Court finds that neither there is any averment nor there is any document available on record, which discloses the names of similarly selected candidates, to whom appointments were given by the respondents in the same selection process, prior to the appointment given to the petitioners. 3. In absence of such specific, pleadings, particulars and documents, no order can be passed, hence under these circumstances, these writ petitions are liable to be rejected on this count alone. 4. Accordingly, these writ petitions stand dismissed. Stay applications as well as all applications (pending, if any) stand disposed of. 5. However, the petitioners would be at liberty to file fresh writ petitions with better particulars along-with the relevant documents, if so advised. (ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J Karan/100-101