[2026:RJ-JP:4878] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 16690/2022 Pankaj Dhobi S/o Shri Shivnarayan Dhobi, Aged About 25 Years, R/o Swaroopganj, Tehsil Choti Sadari, District Pratapgarh (Raj.) ----Petitioner Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Additional Chief Secretary, School Education, Government Secretariat, Jaipur. 2. Additional Chief Secretary, Rural Development And Panchayati Raj Department, Government Secretariat, Jaipur. 3. Director, Elementary Education, Bikaner. 4. District Education Officer, Elementary, Pratapgarh. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Parth Gupta for Mr. Sudhir Gupta For Respondent(s) : Mr. Saumil Sharma for Mr. Gopal Krishan Sharma, AGC HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR JAIN Order 02/02/2026 1. Instant writ petition is preferred by petitioner with following prayer: v& leqfpr vkns”k ;k funsZ”k }kjk] mRizs’k.k ys[k dh izd`fr esa] vkns”k fnukad 19-09-2022 vuqyaXu 9 dks fifV”kuj ds lEcU/k esa vikLr Qjek;k tkosA c& leqfpr vkns”k ;k funsZ”k }kjk] ijevkns”k fjV dh izd`fr esa] fifV”kuj dh dkmlfyax djokbZ tkdj] Vhpj xzsM III dh fu;qfDr vkns”k iznku fd;k tkosA [2026:RJ-JP:4878] (2 of 3) [CW-16690/2022] l& ;g fd fifV”kuj dh ;kfpdk fopkjk/khu gksus rd ,d in fjDr j[kk tkosA n& ;g fd okn dk gtkZ [kpkZ fifV”kuj dks jsLiksUMsUVl ls fnyok;k tkosA ;& ;g fd vU; vkns”k funsZ”k tks ekuuh; Jheku th U;k;fgr esa mfpr le>s og Hkh fifV”kuj dks iznku fd;k tkosA 2. During course of argument, learned counsel for petitioner submits that identical issue was considered by Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Kuldeep Kumar Pathak Vs. State of UP and Ors. AIR 2016 SCC 251 and further considered by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in case of Nirma Kumar Meena Vs. State of Rajasthan in SB CWP No.14228/2017, therefore the writ petition be disposed of in light of these judgments. He further placed reliance upon order dated 3105.2022 in case of Bhuban Mohan Behera Vs. State of Odisha and Anr. passed by High Court of Orissa at Cuttak and order dated 04.07.2022 in case of Himanshi Yadav Vs. State of UP passed by a Co- ordinate Bench of Allahabad High Court. 3. He also referred minutes of meeting dated 29.10.2012 along with forwarding letter dated 28.12.2012 issued by UGC, New Delhi and submitted that an expert committee constituted by UGC has also permitted simultaneous conducting a courses, one of diploma and another of degree, thus the writ petition be decided on the basis of material submitted by the petitioner. [2026:RJ-JP:4878] (3 of 3) [CW-16690/2022] 4. Learned counsel for respondents submits that the petitioner may submit a representation and they will consider the case of petitioner in light of these judgments as claimed by him. 5. Considered the grievance raised herein, the petitioner is given a liberty to submit a representation to the respondents-Authority within a period of 30 days raising all grounds and the respondents-Authority are directed to decide the representation in light of ratio laid down in case of Kuldeep Kumar Pathak Vs. State of UP and Ors. (supra), Nirma Kumar Meena Vs. State of Rajasthan (supra), Bhuban Mohan Behera Vs. State of Odisha and Anr. (supra) and Himanshi Yadav Vs. State of UP (supra), but in case of deviation with a reasoned and speaking order within a period of 60 days from date of receipt of representation. After the decision, the respondents are under an obligation to communicate the order to the petitioner either by way of speed post or through E-mail, if petitioner has provided E-mail in his representation. 6. Needless to say that if ratio is applicable upon facts of the case as claimed by the petitioner, then same benefits be extended, to the petitioner. 7. With the aforesaid directions, the present writ petition with pending application, if any, stands disposed of. (ASHOK KUMAR JAIN),J PREETI VALECHA /62