[2025:RJ-JP:9879] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3170/2025 Parvati Teli D/o Ladu Lal Teli, Aged About 26 Years, R/o VPO Parasoli, Tehsil Asind, District Bhilwara, Rajasthan. ----Petitioner Versus 1. State of Rajasthan, through Principal Secretariat, School Education, Govt. Secretariat, Rajasthan, Jaipur. 2. The Director, Elementary Education, Rajasthan, Bikaner. 3. The Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Dausa. 4. The District Education Officer, Headquarter (Elementary) Dausa. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ram Pratap Saini For Respondent(s) : Mr. G.K. Sharma, AGC JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND Order 05/03/2025 1. Issue notice to the respondents. 2. Mr. G.K. Sharma, AGC accepts notice on behalf of the respondents. 3. With the consent of the counsel for the parties, the matter is taken up for final disposal. 4. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the issue involved in this petition is covered by the judgment of this Court in the case of Hemlata Shrimali & Others Versus State of Rajasthan & Others and connected matters, SBCWP No. 3247/2015 decided on 01.04.2015. Counsel submitted that [2025:RJ-JP:9879] (2 of 3) [CW-3170/2025] albeit the case of the petitioner is covered by the principle enunciated in the aforesaid judgment of this Court, the petitioner similarly entitled is not being granted notional benefits on the post of Teacher Gr. III with effect from the date they are due. 5. Perusal of the writ petition indicates that requisite documents for this Court to evaluate the case set up by the petitioner is not annexed to the petition. In absence of such documents this Court cannot ascertain whether the petitioner case is at par with that of Hemlata Shrimali & Others (supra). 6. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that in this state of affairs the petitioner be allowed to withdraw the petition with liberty to make a representation with supporting material to the jurisdictional District Education Officer ventilating his grievance and claiming parity with Hemlata Shrimali (Supra). 7. Counsel for the respondent-State has no objection if a liberty is granted to the petitioner for filing a representation before the respondent-authorities. 8. In the circumstances, the writ petition is disposed of as withdrawn with liberty as prayed for. The petitioner shall be at liberty to make a detailed representation with material particulars to the jurisdictional District Education Officer with reference to the law enunciated by this court in the case of Hemlata Shrimali & Others (supra). In the event of a representation being submitted by the petitioner ventilating his grievance, the jurisdictional District Education Officer is directed to dispose it of in accordance with law, in the light of the judgment passed in the case of Hemlata Shrimali & Ors. (supra) to the extent applicable with [2025:RJ-JP:9879] (3 of 3) [CW-3170/2025] reference to the facts of the petitioner’s case, by a reasoned order within a period of eight weeks of its receipt. 9. The present writ petition stands disposed of. 10. Stay application and all pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. 11. Before parting with this order, it is made clear that this Court has not issued any order or direction to the respondents to decide the representation in a particular way, the respondents would be at liberty to decide the same strictly in accordance with law. (ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J GARIMA /53