[2025:RJ-JP:14832] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 18107/2017 Upendra Kumar Sharma Son of Shri Nanag Ram Sharma, Resident of Near Pashu Chikitsalaya, Vandpo Laxmangarh, District Alwar ----Petitioner Versus 1. State of Rajasthan, Principal Secretary, Department of Education, Government of Rajasthan, Government Secretariat, Jaipur. 2. Director of Secondary Education, Government of Rajasthan, Bikaner 3. District Education Officer, Secondary-Ist, Alwar 4. District Education Officer, Primary, Alwar 5. Principal, Government Higher Secondary School, Mauzpur, Tehsil Laxmangarh, District Alwar ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr.Pradeep Kalwania (through VC) For Respondent(s) : Ms.Anjum Parveen Salawat for Ms.Namita Parihar, Dy.GC. JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND Order 02/04/2025 1. By way of filing this writ petition, a challenge has been made to the impugned order dated 25.09.2017 by which the recovery order has been passed against the petitioner. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that before passing the aforesaid order, neither any notice was issued nor any opportunity of hearing was provided to the petitioner and straightaway, the order impugned has been passed which amounts to violation of principles of natural justice. [2025:RJ-JP:14832] (2 of 3) [CW-18107/2017] 3. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent-State opposes the prayer and submits that wrong fixation of the petitioner was done inadvertently and the order impugned has been passed immediately, when the fact came into the notice of the concerned authorities. Counsel submits that the petitioner is not entitled to get the benefit of wrong fixation, hence, a decision was taken to recover the excess amount received by the petitioner. Counsel submits that the order passed by the State-Authorities is justified, which requires no interference of this Court and the petition is liable to be rejected. 4. Heard and considered the submissions made at Bar and perused the material available on record. 5. Perusal of the order impugned indicates that this order has been passed without issuing any notice and without affording any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and straightaway, the order of recovery was passed, the aforesaid action of the respondents has resulted in violation of principles of natural justice. 6. In view of the above, the impugned order dated 25.09.2017 is not sustainable in the eyes of law and is liable to be quashed and set-aside. The matter is remitted back to the respondents for passing fresh order, after affording due opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. 7. Needless to observe, fresh order would be passed by the respondents within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order, after affording due opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, by way of passing reasoned and speaking order. [2025:RJ-JP:14832] (3 of 3) [CW-18107/2017] 8. Stay application and all pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. (ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J Aayush Sharma /145