RAKESH KUMAR NEPALIYA S/O SH. HAJARI LAL v. THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN
SAW/1116/2025 · 2026-04-01
Sanjeev Prakash Sharma, Shubha Mehta
Contempt Petitionbody2026
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2026 DAILYLAW 1158 (RAJ) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2026 DAILYLAW 1158 (RAJ) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
[2026:RJ-JP:13472-DB] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Special Appeal (Writ) No. 1116/2025 In S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.1358/2017 Rakesh Kumar Nepaliya S/o Sh. Hajari Lal, Aged About 39 Years, R/o Plot No. 37, Ashok Nagar-II, Agra Road, Dausa (Raj.). ----Appellant/Petitioner Versus
1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary Elementary Education, Secretariat, Jaipur (Raj.).
2. The Secretary Cum Commissioner, Rural Development And Panchayati Raj Department, Secretariat, Jaipur (Raj.)
3. The Director, Elementary Education, Bikaner (Raj.).
4. The District Education Officer, Elementary Education, Dausa (Raj.).
5. The Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Dausa (Raj.).
6. Shri Batti Lal Bairwa S/o Shri F.R. Baiewa, Aged About 45 Years, R/o Dausa, Through C.E.O. Zila Parishad, Dausa (Raj.).
7. Yeshpal Singh Bhoria S/o Shri Mangat Ram Bhoria, Aged About 45 Years, R/o Dausa, Through C.E.O. Zila Parishad, Dausa (Raj.). ----Respondents For Appellant(s) : Mr. Brahma Prakash For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sachin Singh Rathore, AAAG HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MR. SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SHUBHA MEHTA
Judgment 01/04/2026
1. The present appeal has been mistakenly filed by the appellant against the order dated 04.04.2023 passed by the
[2026:RJ-JP:13472-DB] (2 of 2) [SAW-1116/2025] learned Single Judge. Although, the order dated 04.04.2023 has been passed in favour of the appellant.
2.
Learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that the present appeal has been filed solely because when the appellant filed the contempt petition for implementation of the judgment, the same was dismissed.
3. We are afraid that on the basis of the contempt petition, the appeal would not lie against the original order and the appeal is wholly misconceived, apart from being highly belated by 798 days.
4. Accordingly, the present Special Appeal (Writ) is dismissed. However, the appellant is free to take up the remedy as available under the law.
5. All pending applications stand disposed of.
(SHUBHA MEHTA),J (SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA),ACTING CJ AMIT/9