Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 2273 (RAJ)

Mohd. Shakeel v. State

2009-11-04

PRAKASH TATIA

body2009
JUDGMENT 1. - The petitioner, after obtaining his Graduation from the Maharishi Dayanand Sarswati University, Ajmer in the year 1990 passed out his B Ed. hin the year. 1994-95 from. the University of Rajasthan. The petitioner also obtained Adbi Maheer degree in the year 1994. The petitioner then applied tor the post of Urdu Teacher Grade-III in response to the advertisement issued by respondent no. 3 in the year 1996. According to the petitioner, in the merit list, the name of the petitioner came to be at S.No. 2. The petitioner then submitted that on 23.1.2003 and 5.1.2004, respondents n. 3 has, issued appointment orders giving appointments to respondents Mohd. Rafique and Bakshish All on the post of Teacher Grade-III. The petitioner's contention is that both those respondents are ranking lower in the merit to the petitioner and since they have been given appointment on the post of Urdu Teacher Grade-III, therefore, the petitioner is also entitled to the appointment to the said post. However, the petitioner in phis writ petition itself, has admitted, that the, appointments to these respondents have been-given after the judgment delivered in D.B. Civil Review Petition No. 22/2002 dated 29.7.2002. The present,writ petition has been filed by the petitioner on 16.4.2004. 2. The respondent-State has submitted, reply to the writ petition and stated that there were total five posts and out of five, two were reserved for reserve category and three were available for the candidates of general class. it is submitted that the appointments have already been given long back and the last two appointments have been given in general category to the respondents in view of the directions issued by this Court. It is submitted that the petitioner, who was aspirant for the post advertised as back as in the year 1996, did not choose to challenge the inaction of the respondents, if it was there, of not giving appointment to the petitioner and has approached this Court when the review petition has been allowed by the Division Bench of this Court. It is submitted that the petitioner since is claiming that appointment on the strength of the degree of Adbi Maheer and that degree is not recognised as held by the Division Bench of this Court in Jalaludin Silwat v. State of Raj. & Anr. It is submitted that the petitioner since is claiming that appointment on the strength of the degree of Adbi Maheer and that degree is not recognised as held by the Division Bench of this Court in Jalaludin Silwat v. State of Raj. & Anr. (D.B. Special Appeal (Writs) No. 522/99) decided vide judgment dated 4.7.2003 as well as in view of the Division Bench judgment of this Court delivered in the case of State of Rajasthan & Ors. v. Firdos Tarannum, ( 2006 (1) RDD 467 (Raj.)(DB) 467) . 3. The learned counsel for the private respondent submits that it is wrong to say that the petitioner is ranking higher in the merit list. It is also submitted that respondents preferred writ petition Nos. 4425/96 and 4426/96, in the year 1996 and obtained the relief from the Court whereas the petitioner has filed this petition after inordinate delay to nullify the judgments of this Court. It is submitted that the respondents since have been given appointments in pursuance of the directions issued by this Court, therefore, their appointments cannot be questioned in another writ petition. 4. In rejoinder, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that since there was interim order passed by this Court, therefore, the petitioner could not have got the appointment at relevant time due to interim order passed and that petition came to be allowed by the judgment dated 29.7.2002 passed in the review petition. 5. I considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record as well as the Division Bench judgment delivered in the D.B. Civil Review Petition No. 22.2002 dated 29.7.2002. The fact which is not in dispute is that the posts were advertised in the year 1996. The petitioner applied for the post and he was not accorded any appointment. The interim order which has been shown by the learned counsel for the respondent says only that in case appointments have not been given, then one post be kept reserved, obviously for the petitioner of that petition. The controversy before the Division Bench (decided in review petition) was that the candidatures of the petitioners were rejected only on the ground that the State was of the view that the petitioners of those petitions have no subject Urdu in Secondary Examination. The controversy before the Division Bench (decided in review petition) was that the candidatures of the petitioners were rejected only on the ground that the State was of the view that the petitioners of those petitions have no subject Urdu in Secondary Examination. Finding that view of the State not correct, the review petitions were allowed and the directions were given to give appointments to the petitioners of those review petitions. The petitioner, who was aspirant and applied for the post in the year 1996, remained sitting on the fence till the review petition was decided and not only that but upto the time when the appointments were given to the respondents. The said review petition was allowed, as stated above, on 29.7.2002. Then the petitioner has preferred this writ petition in the year 2004. In these facts and circumstances and looking to the fact that there were total five posts only and the stand of the State is that the appointments have already been given and out of which two appointments have been given in pursuance of the directions of this Court, this Court is of the view that the petitioner is not entitled to any relief as he was not vigilant to pursue his case in time. 6. Therefore, the writ petition of the petitioner is dismissed.Writ Petition Dismissed. *******