MUKESH MEENA S/O GYANI RAM v. THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN
CW/1864/2026 · 2026-02-02
Anand Sharma
Transfer Petitionbody2026
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2026 DAILYLAW 16594 (RAJ) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2026 DAILYLAW 16594 (RAJ) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
[2026:RJ-JP:4692] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.1864/2026 Mukesh Meena S/o Gyani Ram, aged about 47 years, R/o Village and Post Newara, Teshsil-Bhusawar District Bharatpur (Raj.) ----Petitioner Versus
1. The State of Rajasthan through Principal Secretary Education Department, Govt. of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. Rajasthan Employee Selection Board, Jaipur through Chairman State Agriculture Management Institution Premises, Durgapura, Jaipur.
3. Director, Secondary Education, Rajasthan, Bikaner (Raj.)
4. National Council for Teacher Education through its Director, Hans Bhawan, Wing-II, Bahadur Sah Zafar Marg, New Delhi-110002. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. R.D. Meena with Mr. Vishnu Meena For Respondent(s) : Mr. M.F. Baig Mr. Devansh Sharma HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND SHARMA
Order 02/02/2026
1.
Learned counsel for the petitioner at the outset submitted that the issue with regard to equivalence of qualification of B.P.E. qua B.P.Ed. has been examined by the Division Bench of this Court vide judgment dated 27.11.2025 passed in D.B. Special Appeal Writ No.152/2023.
2.
Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that although the petitioner appeared in recruitment process initiated
[2026:RJ-JP:4692] (2 of 2) [CW-1864/2026] vide advertisement dated 04.05.2018, yet by considering the degree of B.P.E. possessed by him as not a recognized qualification, he was deprived of his right of appointment.
3.
Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that in the light of judgment dated 27.11.2025, the petitioner wants to submit a fresh representation before the respondents for
consideration.
4. In view of the limited prayer made by the petitioner, the writ petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to make a representation before the Competent Authority, who shall consider and decide the same within a period of two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.
5. It is made clear that no opinion on merits has been expressed by this Court while disposing of this writ petition.
6. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
(ANAND SHARMA),J DAKSH/63