[2025:RJ-JP:6784] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2516/2023 1. Om Prakash Vyas (NDSI) Son Of Shri Mohan Lal Vyas, Aged About 77 Years, Permanent Resident Of C-135, R.K. Colony, Bhilwara, Rajasthan, Presently Residing At House No. 172, Janakpuri IInd Imliwala Phatak, Sahkar Marg, Jaipur 302005 (Seniority No. 132 In Seniority List Date 11.12.1992 And At No. 144 In The Order No. 96, Dated 22.10.1996) 2. Ranjeeta Shekhawat Daughter In Law Of Late Shri Prem Singh Sekhawat (NDSI), Aged About 46 Years, Wife Of Late Shri Preetam Singh Shekhawat, Resident Of House No. 8/230, Bakshi Ji Ki Kothi, Naya Bazar, Ajmer, Rajasthan (Name Of Late Shri Prem Singh Sekhawat Find Place At Seniority No. 122 In Seniority List Dated 11.12.1992 And At No. 130 In The Order No. 96, Dated 22.10.1996) 3. Ram Daya Bohra (NDSI) Son Of Shri Kanhaiya Lal, Resident Of Garh Himmat Singh Dausa, Rajasthan (At No. 167 In The Order No. 96, Dated 22.10.1996) 4. Udai Prabhakar Lad (NDSI) Son Of Shri Narbedeshwar Ji Lad, Aged About 80 Years, Resident Of C-64, R.k. Colony, Bhilwara, Rajasthan (At No. 146 In The Order No. 96, Dated 22.10.1996) ----Petitioners Versus 1. The State of Rajasthan, Through Secretary, Department of Physical Education, School Education, Secretariat, Jaipur - 302005. 2. The Director Directorate of Secondary Education, Rajasthan, Bikaner - 334001 3. The Union of India, Through Secretary, Ministry of Youth Affairs And Sports, Department of Youth Affairs, Shastri Bhawan, New Delhi- 110001. ----Respondents [2025:RJ-JP:6784] (2 of 3) [CW-2516/2023] For Petitioner(s) : Mr. P.S. Tomar For Respondent(s) : Mr. B.S. Chhaba, AAG with Mr. Rahul Gupta JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND Order 17/02/2025 1. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that identical controversy has already been raised, considered and adjudicated upon by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Balram Verma Versus The Union of India & Ors.: S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.18106/2012, vide order dated 18th November, 2017, after hearing the learned counsel for the respondents. 2. It is further contended that for the present; the petitioners would be satisfied, if the State-respondents are directed to decide the representation(s) of the petitioners in the backdrop of the adjudication made in the case of Balram Verma (supra), within a time frame, which they are ready and willing to address within two weeks hereinafter. 3. In view of the limited prayer addressed; the instant writ proceedings are closed with a direction to the petitioners to address comprehensive representation(s) enclosing a copy of the adjudication in the case of Balram Verma (supra). 4. In case, representation(s) is so addressed within the aforesaid period, the State-respondents are directed to consider and decide the same by a reasoned and speaking order as expeditiously as possible in accordance with law. However, in no [2025:RJ-JP:6784] (3 of 3) [CW-2516/2023] case later than twelve weeks from the date of receipt of the representation(s) along with a certified copy of this order. 5. With the observations and directions, as indicated above, the writ applications stand disposed of. 6. All pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. (ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J Garima/267