LAVEE KUMAR S/O ACHAL SINGH v. THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN
CW/13961/2025 · 2025-09-15
Maneesh Sharma
body2025
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 28745 (RAJ) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 28745 (RAJ) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
[2025:RJ-JP:37434] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13961/2025 Lavee Kumar S/o Achal Singh, Aged About 27 Years, R/o Vpo- Pipron, Tehsil-Baseri, District-Dholpur, Rajasthan. ----Petitioner Versus
1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary, School Education Department, Govt. Of Rajasthan, Government Secretariat, Jaipur
2. The Director, Elementary Education, Rajasthan, Bikaner.
3. Rajasthan Staff Selection Board, Through Its Secretary, Agriculture Management Institute Building, Durgapura, Jaipur, Rajasthan. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ram Pratap Saini with Mr. Aamir Khan For Respondent(s) :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANEESH SHARMA Order 15/09/2025
1. In the writ petition, the petitioner has raised various issues. However, the learned counsel for the petitioner, upon instructions from his client, submitted that he would be satisfied if: the petitioner is permitted to file a representation before the respondent No.3-Secretary, Rajasthan Staff Selection Board encapsulating the grievance(s) raised in the present writ petition; and if a direction may be issued to respondent No.3 to decide the same in a time bound manner.
2. Heard and considered the submissions made at bar.
[2025:RJ-JP:37434] (2 of 2) [CW-13961/2025]
3. In view of the above, the present writ petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to file a representation before respondent No.3-Secretary, Rajasthan Staff Selection Board. The respondent No.3 is directed to decide the said representation within a period of four (4) weeks from the date of filing of such representation by a speaking order, strictly in accordance with law.
4. It is made clear that the aforesaid direction to decide such representation has been issued only with a view to ensure an expeditious redressal of the petitioner’s grievance. The same shall not be construed to be an order to decide the representation in a particular manner.
5. The stay application and other pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of, accordingly.
(MANEESH SHARMA),J SOURAV /22