NAVYA MEEL D/O GHEESA RAM MEEL v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN
CW/3621/2026 · 2026-04-13
Sameer Jain
body2026
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2026 DAILYLAW 2134 (RAJ) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2026 DAILYLAW 2134 (RAJ) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
[2026:RJ-JP:15298] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3621/2026 Navya Meel D/o Gheesa Ram Meel, Aged About 14 Years, R/o Gram Bujiyana, Rajas, Laxamangarh, District- Sikar, Rajasthan. Through Her Father Gheesa Ram Meel. ----Petitioner Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Principal Secretary, Department Of School Education, Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. The Director, Department Of Secondary Education, Bikaner.
3. Deputy Director (Sports), Secondary Education, Bikaner.
4. District Education Officer (Headquarter), Kota, Rajasthan.
5. Chandrika Nathawat D/o Vikram Singh Nathawat, R/o Rewra Khurd, Gelawas, Reoda Khurd, Pali, Rajasthan-
306421. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Kuldeep Singh Punia Mr. Inder Jeet Tak Mr. Vivek Dhaka For Respondent(s) : Ms. Mahi Yadav, AAG HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SAMEER JAIN
Judgment 13/04/2026
1. The present writ petition has been filed invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
2. In the instant matter, after arguments were advanced at some length, it is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that Respondent No. 3 vide Annexure-12, had constituted a committee to conduct an enquiry and render its findings qua selection of the petitioner.
[2026:RJ-JP:15298] (2 of 2) [CW-3621/2026]
3. It is submitted that despite the constitution of the said committee and the passage of adequate time, no conclusive findings have been submitted or communicated till date and the same is causing causing prejudice and grave hardship to the petitioner.
4. Having heard the submissions advanced and upon perusal of the material available on record, this Court is of the opinion that the matter at hand requires consideration.
5. Issue notice to the respondents.
6. Upon the specific directions of this Court, Ms. Mahi Yadav, learned AAG, accepts notice on behalf of the respondents.
7. In light of the facts and circumstances of the case at hand, this Court deems it just and proper to dispose of the present writ petition with a specific direction to respondent No.3. The competent authority/committee is directed to ensure that the directions as stipulated in Annexure-12 are carried out, and the ongoing enquiry shall be finalized within a period of 15 days from the date of passing of this order.
8. It is made clear that prior to arriving at a final conclusion, the competent authority shall afford a due opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and subsequently pass a reasoned and speaking
order, strictly in accordance with the law.
9. Accordingly, the present writ petition stands disposed of. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand(s) disposed of.
(SAMEER JAIN),J Pooja /4