MUKESH JANGID v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN
Court: High Court of Rajasthan
Bench: DINESH MEHTA
Judgment date:
Case summary
High Court of Rajasthan judgment dated 2020-12-08. MUKESH JANGID v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN. Read the judgment and case details on LawSphereX.
Judgment text
(1 of 2) [CW-9740/2020] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9740/2020 Mukesh Jangid S/o Shri Basti Ram, Aged About 32 Years, R/o Khatripura, Nagaur, Tehsil And District Nagaur, Rajasthan. ----Petitioner Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, Department Of Educations, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur, Rajasthan. 2. The Secretary, Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Ajmer, Rajasthan. 3. The Director, Secondary Education, Bikaner, Rajasthan. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Kailash Jangid through Cisco Webex App For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vinit Sanadhya Mr. Mahesh Thanvi } both through Cisco Webex App JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA Order 08/12/2020 1. After arguing for some time, Mr. Kailash Jangid, learned counsel for the petitioner seeks permission to withdraw the present writ petition with a liberty to file representation before the RPSC along with the judgments, which he seeks to rely on. 2. Mr.
Vinit Sanadhya, learned counsel for the respondent- Commission, submits that petitioner has approached this Court at highly belated stage, when result has been declared thrice. He also submits that recruitment is almost complete. 3. While contending that the petitioner’s request cannot be acceded to at this stage, as the petitioner has approached this (2 of 2) [CW-9740/2020] Court after five years from declaration of the first result, he contends that direction to consider the representation may also not be issued. 4. Without making any observation on merit of the case or on the correctness of either party’s stand, the present writ petition is disposed of with the direction to the petitioner to move a representation before Secretary-RPSC, within a period of two weeks from today, who shall decide the same in accordance with law preferably within a period of four weeks of placing a certified copy of the order instant. 5.
It is made clear that aforesaid direction to decide the representation has been issued only with a view to ensure expeditious redressal of petitioner’s grievance. The same may not be construed to be an order to decide the representation in a particular manner. 6. Stay petition is also disposed of accordingly. 7. Present order shall not be used as a fresh cause of action to revive petitioner’s otherwise stale, rather, dead cause or to cover up the delay in approaching the Court. (DINESH MEHTA),J 8-Amar/-
Source: High Court of Rajasthan. Dataset: Dattam Labs. CC BY 4.0. Text extracted automatically; compare with the source PDF for layout and accuracy.