[2025:RJ-JP:10743] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.3424/2025 1. Bishambar Singh S/o Shri Shyam Lal, Aged About 46 Years, Resident Of 15/44, Malviya Nagar, Jaipur (Raj). 2. Rajnish Arora S/o Shri Chiman Lal Arora, Aged About 53 Years, Resident Of A-400, Malviya Nagar, Jaipur (Raj). ----Petitioners Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Principal Secretary, Medical And Health Department, Government Secretariat, Jaipur. 2. The Director, Medical And Health Services, Swasthya Bhawan, Tilak Marg, C-Scheme, Jaipur. 3. Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Through Its Secretary, Ajmer. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Arshad Khan for Mr. Tanveer Ahamad JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND Order 10/03/2025 1. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that before approaching this Court, the petitioners approached the respondents by way of filing a representation as well as notice for demand of justice for redressal of their grievances, but for the reasons best known to the authority the representation submitted by the petitioners has not been decided. 2. Learned counsel further submits that the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Pawan Meena Versus State of Rajasthan (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.1665/2024 decided on [2025:RJ-JP:10743] (2 of 2) [CW-3424/2025] 02.02.2024) has directed all the Departments of the State to decide the representation within a stipulated time but inspite of passing of the said order, till date, the representation submitted by the petitioners has not been decided. 3. Heard and considered the submissions made at Bar and perused the material available on record. 4. Considering the arguments put forward by learned counsel for the petitioners, the instant writ petition stands disposed of with direction to the respondents to decide the representation (pending, if any) expeditiously as early as possible, preferably within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order, strictly in accordance with law, by passing a reasoned and speaking order. 5. Stay application and all pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. 6. Before parting with this order, it is made clear that this Court has not passed any direction/order to the respondents to decide the representation of the petitioners in a particular way. The respondents would be at liberty to decide the same strictly in accordance with law. (ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J Karan/16