Rajasthan High Court
WMAP/390/2019 of POOJA MEENA DAUGHTER OF SHRI PAWAN KUMAR MEENA, WIFE OF SHRI MANISH MEENA Vs THE SECRETARY, RAJASTHAN PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSIONER on 14 August 2026
JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Writ Miscellaneous Application No.390/2019 CNR: RJHC021088722019 | URN: WMAP / 769U / 2019 In S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.16162/2018 Pooja Meena Daughter Of Shri Pawan Kumar Meena, Wife Of Shri Manish Meena, Aged About 30 Years, Resident of 703,
[2026:RJ-JP:32349]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Writ Miscellaneous Application No.390/2019
CNR: RJHC021088722019 | URN: WMAP / 769U / 2019
In
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.16162/2018
Pooja Meena Daughter Of Shri Pawan Kumar Meena, Wife Of Shri Manish Meena, Aged About 30 Years, Resident of 703, Akshat Nilay, Hawa Sadak, Civil Lines, Jaipur (Raj.)
----Non Applicant-Petitioner
Versus
1.
The Secretary, Rajasthan Public Service Commissioner, Ajmer (Rajasthan)
----Respondent/ Applicant
2.
Assistant Secretary, Rajasthan Public Service Commis- sioner, Ajmer (Rajasthan)
----Respondent/ Applicant
3.
Union Of India Through The Secretary (Textiles), Ministry Of Textiles, New Delhi (India)
4.
Registrar, National Institute Of Fashion Technology, New Delhi (India).
----Non Applicants-Respondents
For Petitioner(s)
:
Mr.Mirza Faisal Baig, Adv.
For Respondent(s)
:
Mr.Shashi Shekhar Gaur, Adv. for
Mr.V.P. Mathur, Adv.
HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MR. SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
Order
14/08/2026
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties at length.
2. Learned counsel appearing for the RPSC Mr. M.F. Baig, submits that the RPSC was not afforded an opportunity of hearing at the time of deciding the writ petition. Although counsel had appeared on behalf of the RPSC on that date, Mr. M.F. Baig was [2026:RJ-JP:32349] (2 of 2) [WMAP-390/2019] not available and, therefore, the matter was decided in his absence.
3. The order passed by this Court does not warrant any interference nor does it require for recall.
4. The application is misconceived and is, accordingly, dismissed. (SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA), ACTING CJ 66/Himanshu Soni