[2025:RJ-JP:39367] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14780/2025 Santra Gurjar, D/o Shri Fateh Singh Gurjar, aged about 34 Years, R/o Village Majeedpura, Post Jagdishpura, Tehsil Todabheem District Karauli. At present working as Teacher Grade-III (Level- 1) In Government Senior Secondary School, Kanwarpura, Block Todabheem District Karauli. ----Petitioner Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary, Education Department, Govt. Secretariat, Jaipur. 2. Director, Secondary Education, Bikaner 3. Director, Elementary Education, Bikaner 4. Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Karauli. 5. District Education Officer, Head Quarter, Secondary Education, Karauli. 6. District Education Officer, Head Quarter, Elementary Education, Karauli. 7. Chief Block Education Officer, Todabheem District Karauli. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Vijay Pathak For Respondent(s) : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANEESH SHARMA Order 24/09/2025 1. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the controversy involved in the present case is squarely covered by an order dated 27.10.2021, passed by a Single Bench at Principal Seat, Jodhpur in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.14952/2021: Mahesh Kumar Sharma Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. [2025:RJ-JP:39367] (2 of 2) [CW-14780/2025] 2. Learned counsel, therefore, prays that the petitioner may be permitted to file a detailed representation before the respondent No.5-District Education Officer, Head Quarter, Secondary Education, Karauli for redressal of his grievances. 3. In view of the above, the present writ petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to file a fresh representation within a period of four (4) weeks from today in the office of respondent No.5 and the respondent No.5 is directed to decide the same within a period of twelve (12) weeks from the date of receipt of such representation; and if the case of the petitioner falls within the purview of the law laid down in the case of Mahesh Kumar Sharma (supra); the same shall be decided in terms of the said judgment. 4. The order has been passed based on the submissions made in the petition, the respondent No.5 would be free to examine the veracity of the submissions made in the petition, and only if the averments made therein are found to be correct, the petitioner would be entitled to the relief sought. 5. It is made clear that aforesaid direction to decide the representation has been issued only with a view to ensure expeditious redressal of petitioners’ grievance. The same may not be construed to be an order to decide the representation in a particular manner. 6. The stay application also stands disposed of accordingly. (MANEESH SHARMA),J SOURAV /62