[2025:RJ-JP:22745] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3221/2025 Chhote Lal Meena S/o Late Shri Roshan Lal Meena, Aged About 57 Years, R/o C-113, Model Town Malviya Nagar, Jaipur. ----Petitioner Versus 1. Dr. Bhimrao Ambedkar Law University, Jaipur Through Its Registrar. 2. Controller Of Examinations Dr. Bhimrao Ambedkar Law University, Jaipur. 3. Vice Chancellor, Dr. Bhimrao Ambedkar Law University, Jaipur. 4. Rajdhani Law College, Bani Park, Jaipur Through Principal. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Pradeep Mathur Mr. R.D. Meena Mr. Hemant Kumar For Respondent(s) : Mr. Ajit Maloo JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND Order 30/05/2025 1. A preliminary objection has been taken by the counsel for the petitioner with regard to the maintainability of this writ petition under the changed circumstances. 2. Counsel for the petitioner submits that during the pendency of the instant writ petition, the petitioner himself submitted one more petition bearing S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7243/2025 before this Court, with regard to identical and similar prayer and the said petition was decided by this Court looking to the limited prayer made by none other than the petitioner himself for disposal of his [2025:RJ-JP:22745] (2 of 2) [CW-3221/2025] representation pending before the respondent-University. Counsel submits that considering the aforesaid limited prayer made by the petitioner, the said petition was decided on 09.07.2025. Counsel for the petitioner submits that in pursuance of the aforesaid order, a representation was submitted by the petitioner and the same was considered by the Competent Authority and subsequently final orders would be passed by the Higher Authority, hence under these circumstances, this petition is not maintainable and is liable to be rejected. 3. Considering the above factual aspect of the matter, the petitioner cannot be allowed to play a game like hide and seek with the Court. Once the petitioner approached the Court by way of filing instant petition then there was no need to file successive writ petition with regard to the identical prayer. While passing the order on successive petition, the facts were not disclosed about the pendency of the instant petition before this Court. 4. Looking at such conduct of the petitioner, this Court is not inclined to entertain the instant writ petition and the same is disposed of by granting liberty to the petitioner that in case, any adverse order is passed against the petitioner by the respondent- University, he would be at liberty to assail the same by way of filing a fresh petition. 5. Stay application and all pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. (ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J Ashu/394