HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8672/2025 S.L.S. Graphic Pvt. Iti, Nh-15, Vishwkarma Market, In Front Of Aman Hotel, Loonkaransar, District Bikaner (Raj.) Through Society Swami Shikshan And Prashikshan Sansthan Loonkaransar, District Bikaner Through Secretary Jai Kishan Bairagi S/o. Sh. Sant Lal Swami, Aged 51 Years, R/o Ward No. 6, Loonkaransar, District Bikaner (Raj.) ----Petitioner Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary, Technical Education, State Of Rajasthan, Jaipur 2. Director, Technical Education, Rajasthan, W-6, Residency Road, Jodhpur-342001. 3. Union Of India, Through Director Of Training, Member Secretary (Ncvt), Ministry Of Skill Development And Entrepreneurship, Directorate General Of Training, Room No. 5, 1St Floor, Employment Exchange Building, Near Iti Campus, Pusa, New Delhi. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Ms. Aradhana Swami For Respondent(s) : Mr. Avanish Kumar Sharma with Mr. Ajay Verma Mr. Ram Singh Bhati JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND Order 30/06/2025 1. Counsel for the petitioner submits that a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner with the allegation that in first shift, no trainee and no staff was found to be present. Counsel submits that the said show cause notice was issued to the petitioner on 08.01.2025 and a detailed reply to the said notice was submitted by the petitioner in the office of the (2 of 3) [CW-8672/2025] respondents on 22.01.2025. Counsel submits that without deciding the first notice, again second show cause notice with same allegations was issued to the petitioner on 06.02.2025. Counsel submits that till date, no orders have been passed against the petitioner, but even then, the portal of the petitioner seeking admission has been freezed by the respondents and the next date for submission of online application is fixed for 10.07.2025, hence, interference of this Court is warranted. 2. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents opposed the arguments raised by the counsel for the petitioner and submitted that no reply to the first and second show cause notice has been received in the office of the respondents, hence, under these circumstances, these notices have not been decided on merits by the respondents by passing a reasoned and speaking order. 3. This Court finds no substance in the aforesaid argument raised by the counsel for the respondents that no reply in this regard has been submitted by the petitioner. This fact is not in dispute that two show cause notices along with similar allegations have been served upon the petitioner and reply to the first show cause notice has already been submitted by the petitioner. It is expected from the respondents to decide the matter on its merits by passing reasoned and speaking order, instead of keeping the matter pending and not allowing the petitioner to participate in the counseling process for getting admission. (3 of 3) [CW-8672/2025] 4. Considering the above factual aspect of the matter, the instant writ petition stands disposed of by issuing directions to the respondents to decide the first and second show cause notice issued to the petitioner within a period of seven days from today. 5. In case, the reply submitted by the petitioner is found to be satisfactory, then, the petitioner may be permitted to participate in the online admission process for getting admission in ITI and in case, any adverse order is passed against the petitioner, the petitioner would be at liberty to assail the same before the appropriate forum of law. 6. The stay application and all pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. (ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J KuD/77