Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Rajasthan · body

2025 DAILYLAW 25171 (RAJ)

SURENDRA SINGH CHOUDHARY SON OF KANHAIYALAL JAT v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

WRW/176/2022 · 2025-03-06

Inderjeet Singh

Review Petitionbody2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

[2025:RJ-JP:10214] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Review Petition (Writ) No. 176/2022 IN S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.2087/2021 Surendra Singh Choudhary Son Of Kanhaiyalal Jat, Aged About 28 Years, Resident Of Vpo- Nayabas, Post Samod, District Jaipur (Raj.) ----Petitioner Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Principal Education Secretary, Government Secretariat, Jaipur. 2. The Rajasthan Staff Selection Board, Through Its Secretary/ Chairman, State Institute Of Agriculture Management Premises, Durgapura, Jaipur (Raj.) 3. The Director, Secondary Education, Bikaner. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. R.K. Gouttam. For Respondent(s) : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE INDERJEET SINGH Order 06/03/2025 This review petition has been filed by the petitioner for recalling of the order dated 09.05.2022 passed by this court. Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the University from where the petitioner has got the required certificate is a recognized University and this fact was not considered by this court while deciding the writ petition. I have perused the material available on record as well as the order dated 09.05.2022 passed by this Court and I find that the order dated 09.05.2022 was passed in view of the reply submitted by the respondents wherein they specifically stated that [2025:RJ-JP:10214] (2 of 2) [WRW-176/2022] the sports certificate obtained by the petitioner from the University is not a recognized University. Admittedly, no rejoinder to the reply was filed by the petitioner in the writ petition and the said order was passed in the presence of counsel for the petitioner. In that view of the matter, no case is made out to grant the relief prayed for in this review petition. Hence, the review petition is dismissed. (INDERJEET SINGH),J MG/70