MAHENDRA SINGH S/O NATAWAR SINGH v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN
CW/12897/2025 · 2025-08-28
Anand Sharma
body2025
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 41644 (RAJ) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 41644 (RAJ) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
[2025:RJ-JP:34416] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.12897/2025
1. Mahendra Singh S/o Natawar Singh, Aged About 26 Years, R/o Village Post Kadera, Tehsil Chaksu, District Jaipur, Rajasthan.
2. Bhupendra Singh S/o Premik S/o Ram Gopal Premik, Aged About 29 Years, R/o Chandelo Ka Mohalla, Chhipabarod, District Baran, Rajasthan.
3. Priyanka Khandelwal D/o Laxmi Narayan Khandelwal, Aged About 36 Years, R/o 17-E, Vishveshwariya Nagar, Gopalpura Byepass, Jaipur, Rajasthan. ----Petitioners Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary, Department Of Information Technology And Communication, Government Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Through Its Secretary, Jaipur Road, Ajmer, Rajasthan. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ram Pratap Saini with Mr. Aamir Khan HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND SHARMA
Order 28/08/2025
1. In the writ petition, the petitioners have raised various issues. However, the learned counsel for the petitioners, upon instructions from their client, submitted that they would be satisfied if the petitioners are permitted to file a representation before the respondent No.2-Secretary, Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Ajmer, encapsulating the grievance(s) raised in the present writ petition within a period of ten days from today.
[2025:RJ-JP:34416] (2 of 2) [CW-12897/2025]
2. Heard and considered the submissions made at bar.
3. In view of the above, the present writ petition is
disposed of with liberty to the petitioners to file a representation before respondent No.2-Secretary, Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Ajmer. The said respondent is directed to decide the representation within a period of eight(8) weeks from the date of filing of the representation by a speaking order, 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 petitioners' grievance. The same shall not be construed to be an order to decide the representation in a particular manner.
5. The stay application(s) and other pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of, accordingly.
(ANAND SHARMA),J DAKSH/23