[2025:RJ-JP:50141] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 19338/2025 Sapana Daughter Of Shri Balbir Singh Kasana, Aged About 27 Years, Resident Of Village Ishqpura, Post Murdpura, District Jhunjhunu (Raj.) ----Petitioner Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Secretary, Department Of Home, Govt. Secretariat, Jaipur (Raj 2. Director General Of Police, Police Head Quarter, Jaipur (Raj.) 3. Inspector General Of Police (Recruitment), Police Head Quarter, Lal Kothi, Jaipur (Raj.) 4. Commissinoer, Commissionrate, Jaipur (Raj.) 5. Superintendent Of Police, Udaipur (Raj.) ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Suresh Kumar Mr. Shobhit Sharma Ms. Vijay Laxmi Jangid For Respondent(s) : Mr. Parth Sharma for Mr. Bhuwnesh Sharma, AAG HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR JAIN Order 10/12/2025 1. Instant writ petition is preferred by petitioner with following prayer: “Issue a writ order or direction in the nature thereof direct the respondents to fixed the date of physical of petitioner after 6 months from date of E.D.D. i.e. 08.12.2025, not cancel the candidature of petitioner on account of her non appearance due to she is pregnant in PET/PST schedule and given appointment to petitioner on the post of Constable [2025:RJ-JP:50141] (2 of 3) [CW-19338/2025] under advertisement dated 09.04.2025 in the larger interest of justice.” 2. Learned counsel for petitioner while referring and relying upon judgment dated 24.08.2020 in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.16652/2019 titled as Nitin Singh Chauhan Vs. State of Rajasthan and Ors. submits that the controversy and the issue raised herein is already settled by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Hon’ble Court on the basis of ratio laid down in case of Mahendra Pratap Singh Vs. State of UP and Ors. Reported in (2019) 13 SCC 706. He further submitted that instant writ petition be disposed of in accordance with aforesaid order. 3. Having considered the submissions of learned counsel for parties and also material placed on record, the writ petition may be disposed of in light of Nitin Singh Chauhan Vs. State of Rajasthan and Ors. (supra) and Mahendra Pratap Singh Vs. State of UP and Ors. (supra). 4. Considered the grievance raised herein, the petitioner is given a liberty to submit a representation to the respondents-Authority within a period of 30 days with all relevant documents and the respondents-Authority is consider to the representation in light of ratio laid down in case of Nitin Singh Chauhan Vs. State of Rajasthan and Ors. (supra) and Mahendra Pratap Singh Vs. State of UP and Ors. (supra), but in case of deviation decide with a reasoned and speaking order within a period of three days from date of receipt of representation, but before 14.12.2025. After the decision, the respondents are under [2025:RJ-JP:50141] (3 of 3) [CW-19338/2025] an obligation to communicate the order to the petitioner either by way of speed post or through E-mail, if petitioner has provided E-mail in her representation. If the petitioner is still aggrieved, she has a liberty to approach this Court with fresh petition. 5. Needless to say that if ratio is applicable upon facts of the case as claimed by the petitioner, then the petitioner is entitled for same benefits. 6. With the aforesaid directions, the present writ petition with pending application, if any, stands disposed of. (ASHOK KUMAR JAIN),J PREETI VALECHA /291