Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Rajasthan · body

2025 DAILYLAW 20012 (RAJ)

SHILPI GARG W/O DEEPAK AGARWAL v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

CW/8086/2025 · 2025-08-07

Mahendar Kumar Goyal

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

[2025:RJ-JP:30415] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8086/2025 Shilpi Garg W/o Deepak Agarwal, Aged About 38 Years, R/o E - 68, New Sanganer Road, Roop Vihar Colony, Opposite Hotel Raj Plaza, Jaipur. ----Petitioner Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan through Its Principal Secretary, Urban Development and Housing Department, Government of Rajasthan, Government Secretariate, Jaipur. 2. Commissioner, Jaipur Development Authority, Jaipur. 3. Joint Secretary, UDH (Grup III), Secretariate, Jaipur. 4. Gaurav Singh S/o Shri Haripal Singh, Aged About 41 Years, R/o Flat No. H2, Plot No.17, Yashodhara Residency, Bandhu Nagar, Murlipura, Jaipur. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ayush Singh for Mr. Punit Singhvi For Respondent(s) : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL Judgment / Order 07/08/2025 For the reasons stated in the application No.1/2025 filed by the petitioner seeking leave of the Court to prefer this writ petition, the same is allowed. The petitioner is permitted to file this writ petition. This writ petition is filed by the petitioner assailing the legality and validity of the interim order dated 28.10.2024 passed by the Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur (for short, “Tribunal”) in appeal No.1772/2024 whereby, the respondent-Department was directed to keep one promotional [2025:RJ-JP:30415] (2 of 2) [CW-8086/2025] post of Assistant Engineer (Civil) vacant for the respondent No.4/appellant. It has been the case of the petitioner that her rights would be prejudicially affected in case the appeal filed by the respondent No.4 before the Tribunal is allowed still, ignoring this important aspect, the interim order was passed in her absence as the party respondent. Learned counsel submits that during pendency of the writ petition, she has been impleaded as the party respondent in the aforesaid appeal and her stay vacation application is pending consideration. Learned counsel further submits that the Tribunal may be directed to decide her stay vacation application expeditiously. He apprises that the next date fixed before the learned Tribunal is 13.08.2025. Heard. Considered. Looking to the nature of the prayer made by learned counsel for the petitioner, this writ petition is disposed of with a request to the Tribunal to decide the application filed by the petitioner for stay vacation either on the next date or within a period of thirty days thereafter. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. (MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL),J YOGESH/26