[2025:RJ-JP:18078] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6174/2025 Damodar Lal Saini S/o Late Ramkhiladi Saini, Aged About 48 Years, R/o Keshavpura, Malipada, Hindaun City, District Karauli (Raj). ----Petitioner Versus 1. Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, Through Chairman Cum Managing Director, Head Office, Parivahan Marg, Chomu House, C-Scheme, Jaipur, Rajasthan. 2. Executive Director (Traffic), Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, Head Office, Chomu House, C- Scheme, Jaipur. 3. Chief Manager, Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, Vidyadhar Nagar Depot, Jaipur. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ankul Gupta Mr. Rahul Ghiya For Respondent(s) : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDESH BANSAL Order 29/04/2025 1. Petitioner is aggrieved by non-grant of compassionate appointment in place of his deceased father, died in harness on 04.03.2013 from the post of Driver in Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation. 2. Undisputedly, the application of petitioner was dismissed vide order dated 06.08.2015 stating inter alia that petitioner has more than two alive children post to the cut-off date i.e. 01.06.2002, hence, he is not eligible for appointment. The order dated 06.08.2015 was put to challenge by filing S.B. Civil Writ Petition [2025:RJ-JP:18078] (2 of 2) [CW-6174/2025] No. 9019/2017, but same was not quashed and writ petition was disposed of vide judgment dated 16.01.2025 simply with liberty to the petitioner to submit a representation. In pursuance thereof, the representation of petitioner has again been rejected vide order dated 21.02.2025 reiterating the same reason has assigned in the original order dated 06.08.2015. Against the rejection of representation vide order dated 21.02.2015, petitioner has preferred this writ petition. 3. During course of arguments, counsel for petitioner does not dispute that the original order dated 06.08.2015 whereby the petitioner was held ineligible for grant of compassionate appointment has attained finality, hence, the second writ petition for the same cause of action in the guise of challenge to the subsequent order dated 21.02.2025, which is merely repetition of the first order, rejecting the representation of petitioner cannot be entertained. 4. For the aforesaid reasons, counsel for petitioner does not press the writ petition and seeks permission to withdraw the same. 5. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn. 6. Stay application and other pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of. (SUDESH BANSAL),J NITIN /253