Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Rajasthan · body

2025 DAILYLAW 20605 (RAJ)

MADHU MADHAV MAHAVIDYALAYA, GORIYA v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

CW/8480/2025 · 2025-05-30

Anoop Kumar Dhand

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

[2025:RJ-JP:22774] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.8480/2025 Madhu Madhav Mahavidyalaya, Goriya, Distt. Sikar Through Its Chairman Chhigan Lal Yadav S/o Dhanna Ram Yadav Aged 47 Years R/o Jajam Ki Dhani, Jajam Ki Dhani, Shishyu Distt. Sikar (Raj.) ----Petitioner Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary, Ministry Of Higher Education, Secretariat, Jaipur, Rajasthan. 2. Commissioner College Education Commissionerate, Rajasthan, At Block 4 Rks Sankul, Jln Road, Jaipur (Raj.)- 302015 3. Additional Commissioner, College Education Commissionerate, Rajasthan, At Block 4 Rks Sankul, Jln Road, Jaipur (Raj.)- 302015 ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Ms. Surbhi Khandelwal JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND Order 30/05/2025 1. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that a liberty be granted to the petitioner to file representation before the respondents for redressal of his grievances and the authority concerned also be directed to decide the representation of the petitioner on its merit, expeditiously as early as possible preferably within a time frame. 2. Considering the aforesaid statement of the counsel for the petitioner, the instant writ petition stands dismissed with the liberty aforesaid. In case, any representation is submitted by the [2025:RJ-JP:22774] (2 of 2) [CW-8480/2025] petitioner within a period of one week, the respondents are expected to hear and decide the same expeditiously as early as possible. 3. Stay application and all pending application(s), if any, also stand dismissed. 4. Before parting with this order, it is made clear that this Court has not issued any order or direction to the respondents to decide the representation of the petitioner in a particular manner. Needless to say that the respondents would be at liberty to decide the same strictly in accordance with law. (ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J Karan/32