JYOTI SAINI v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN
Court: High Court of Rajasthan
Bench: DINESH MEHTA
Judgment date:
Case summary
High Court of Rajasthan judgment dated 2020-12-05. JYOTI SAINI v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN. Read the judgment and case details on LawSphereX.
Judgment text
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9738/2020 Jyoti Saini D/o Shri Radheshyam Rajoriya, Aged About 35 Years, R/o Mawandia Ki Dhani, Post Aduka, Tehsil Chirawa, District Jhunjhunu, Rajasthan. ----Petitioner Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, Department Of Rural And Panchayati Raj, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur Rajasthan. 2. The Secretary, Department Of Education, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur, Rajasthan. 3. The Director, Elementary Education, Bikaner, District Bikaner, Rajasthan. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Kailash Jangid, through Cisco Webex For Respondent(s) : Mr. Kailash Choudhary, through Cisco Webex JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA Order 05/12/2020 1. The petitioner approached this Court with an assertion that due to inadvertence in her application form, she had filled incorrect marks (1867 marks) in place of her actual marks, i. e. , (2704) obtained in graduation. 2.
Upon Court’s query about the delay in approaching the Court, learned counsel for the petitioner made an alternate prayer that petitioner would be satisfied if an appropriate direction be issued to the respondent to consider her representation which she would be submitting within a period of 15 days from today. (2 of 2) [CW-9738/2020] 3. The present writ petition is, therefore, disposed of with a direction to the petitioner to move comprehensive representation to respondent No. 3 within a period of 15 days along with the certified copy of the order instant and judgment (if any). 4. The Director (respondent No. 3) shall consider the same in accordance with law within a period of four weeks, from its receipt. 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.
The stay application also stands disposed of accordingly. (DINESH MEHTA),J 29-pooja/-
Source: High Court of Rajasthan. Dataset: Dattam Labs. CC BY 4.0. Text extracted automatically; compare with the source PDF for layout and accuracy.