Avinash Guganiya v. The State of Rajasthan
Case at a glance
Key paragraphs
- Para 22. The Commissioner, Rajasthan Police, Jaipur Commissionerate, M.I. Road, Sardar Patel Marg, Adjacent to BSNL Head Office, Jaipur. ----Respondents For Appellant(s) : Mr. Rudraksh Sharma For Respondent(s) : Mr. Samee Khan & Ms. Sunita Meena for Mr. Bhuwnesh Sharma, Additional Advocate General Mr. Deshraj Jain…
Judgment
Avinash Guganiya son of Late Shri Mamraj, Aged About 27 Years, Resident of Plot No. 55, Behind Maneesh School, Balaji Dharm Kanta, Harmada, Jaipur, Rajasthan. ----Appellant-petitioner Versus
The State of Rajasthan, through its Secretary, Home Department, Government Secretariat, Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur.
The Commissioner, Rajasthan Police, Jaipur Commissionerate, M.I. Road, Sardar Patel Marg, Adjacent to BSNL Head Office, Jaipur. ----Respondents For Appellant(s) : Mr. Rudraksh Sharma For Respondent(s) : Mr. Samee Khan & Ms. Sunita Meena for Mr. Bhuwnesh Sharma, Additional Advocate General Mr. Deshraj Jain HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA PRAKASH SHRIMALI Order 29/07/2025 The challenge is to the judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge dated 21.04.2025 whereby learned Single Judge noticed that the representation made for seeking compassionate appointment has not been decided by the Department and therefore, directed that the said application be decided within a period of two months by a speaking order. [2025:RJ-JP:28624-DB] (2 of 2) [SAW-466/2025] Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the reply to the writ petition has already been filed by the respondents, where they denied eligibility of the petitioner for compassionate appointment and therefore, it would be an exercise in futility. We are of the considered view that the order passed by the learned Single Judge does not warrant any interference as once the Court directs the Department to consider the application for compassionate appointment, it would be presumed that the Court has already taken into consideration, the reply filed by the respondents and still directed the Department to examine it independently. In view thereto, the reply filed to the writ petition would not come in way for the decision of the representation as directed by the learned Single Judge. The appeal is misconceived and the same is accordingly dismissed with the aforesaid observations. All pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of. (CHANDRA PRAKASH SHRIMALI),J (SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA),J GAURAV SHARMA/Garima/88
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.