Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Rajasthan · body

2025 DAILYLAW 9655 (RAJ)

PRAHLAD SINGH AND ORS v. STATE AND ORS

CW/2016/2006 · 2025-07-22

Mahendar Kumar Goyal

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

[2025:RJ-JP:27412] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2016/2006 1. Prahlad Singh Son of Shri Bhanwar Singh aged about 40 years working as Shiksha Karami Sahyogi Upper Primary School Ruppura (Kuchaman City) District Nagaur 2. Gopal Lal Jat Son of Shri Bhura Ram Jat Aged about 40 years working as Shiksha Karami Sahyogi Upper Primary School Shyampura Chaksu District Jaipur 3. Ram Kishore Sharma Son of Shri Bhanwar Lal Sharma aged about 47 years, working as Shiksha Karami Sahyogi Upper Primary School Nayaganj (Kishangarh), District Ajmer 4. Satya Narayan Sharma son of Shri Bhanwar Lal Sharma aged about 52 years, working as Shiksha Karami Sahyogi, Middle School Kalyanipura (Kishangarh), District Ajmer 5. Smt. Meera Gupta wife of Shri Ramesh Chand Gupta aged about 44 years working as Shiksha Karami Sahyog Primary School Haripura (Lalsot) District Dausa 6. Ram Jatan Choudhary son of Shri Suwa Lal aged about 42 years working as Shiksha Karami Sahyogi Middle School Vigolav (Dudu) District Jaipur 7. Mohar Pal Gurjar son of Shri Kajod Mal, aged about 42 years working as Shiksha Karami Sahyogi Primary School Valera (Lalsot) District Jaipur 8. Radhey Shyam Sharma son of Shri Johari Lal Sharma aged about 38 years, working as Shiksha Karami Sahyogi Upper Primary School Pingoon (Dudu) District Jaipur ----Petitioners Versus 1. State of Rajasthan through its Secretary, Elementary Education Shiksha Sankul Parisar Jaipur 2. Shiksha Karami Board Through its Secretary, Shiksha Sankul Parisar Jaipur ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Shobit Tiwari For Respondent(s) : Mr. Aniket Beniwal for Mr. Basant Singh Chhaba, AAG HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL [2025:RJ-JP:27412] (2 of 2) [CW-2016/2006] Order 22/07/2025 Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that despite service of notice upon them, he has received no instructions. He, therefore, pleads no instructions. In view thereof, this writ petition is dismissed for non- prosecution. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of accordingly. (MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL),J DIKSHA /227