Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Rajasthan · body

2025 DAILYLAW 32958 (RAJ)

HEMLATA D/O JAGDISH PRASAD GAUTAM v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

CW/17266/2024 · 2025-02-24

Sameer Jain

Transfer Petitionbody2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

[2025:RJ-JP:8307] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1667/2025 Karishma Kumari W/o Sunil Kumar D/o Omprakash, Aged About 29 Years, R/o Village - Gurjarwas, Tehsil Behror, District Kotputli- Behror (Raj.). ----Petitioner Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Secretary, Medical Health And Family Welfare Department, Rajasthan, Jaipur. 2. Rajasthan Staff Selection Board, Through Its President, Duragapura, Jaipur, Rajasthan. 3. The Director, State Health And Family Welfare Institution, Swasthya Bhawan, Tilak Marg, C- Scheme, Jaipur (Raj.). 4. The Director (Non- Gazette), Medical And Health Services Rajasthan Swasthya Bhawan, Tilak Marg, C-Scheme, Jaipur. ----Respondents Connected With S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 17266/2024 Hemlata D/o Jagdish Prasad Gautam, Aged About 42 Years, R/o 119/181, Agarwal Farm, Thadi Market, Mansarovar, Jaipur, Rajasthan. ----Petitioner Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Principal Secretary, Department Of Higher Education, Secretariat, Jaipur. 2. The Commissioner, College Education, Shiksha Shankul, Jln Marg, Jaipur. 3. The Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Ajmer Through Its Secretary. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sudhir Yadav Mr. Ram Pratap Saini For Respondent(s) : Mr. Prakhar Jain for Mr. Archit Bohra, AGC Mr. Govind Gupta for Mr. Mirza Faisal Baig HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SAMEER JAIN Judgment 24/02/2025 Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the instant matters are squarely covered by the dictum encapsulated in Aman Kumari vs. The State of Rajasthan & Ors. in S.B. Civil Writ [2025:RJ-JP:8307] (2 of 2) [CW-1667/2025] Petition No.7512/2022, wherein vide judgment dated 21.09.2022 the lis in hand is already adjudicated. Learned counsel for the respondents is unable to controvert the same. In light of the above and applying the same ratio and equivalent benefit as directed in Aman Kumari (Supra), the present petitions are allowed. Pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed of. (SAMEER JAIN),J DEEPAK/129-130