Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 1607 (RAJ)

Gurudayal Singh v. State of Rajasthan

2011-08-04

M.N.BHANDARI

body2011
Hon'ble BHANDARI, J.—By these writ petitions, a prayer has been made for giving appointment to the petitioners on the post of Teacher Gr. III pursuant to the advertisement number 1/98 of the year 1998. 2. It is submitted that respondents provided bonus marks based on residence. The award of bonus marks was challenged by many candidates. The award of bonus marks based on residence was held to be illegal other than the bonus marks for residents of State of Rajasthan. The aforesaid matter ultimately travelled to the Supreme Court in the case of Kailash Chand Sharma vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. The Hon'ble Apex Court considered the matter extensively and thereupon it was held that award of bonus marks based on residence either for rural or for particular district, has rightly been declared to be illegal by the Full Bench in its judgment dated 18.11.1999. While concluding the judgment, the Hon'ble Apex Court given following directions in para 46, which is reproduced hereunder for ready reference: "46. Having due regard to the rival contentions adverted to above and keeping in view the factual scenario and the need to balance the competing claims in the light of acceptance of prospective overruling in principle, we consider it just and proper to confine the relief only to the petitioners who moved the High Court and to make appointments made on or after 18.11.1999 in any of the districts subject to the claims of the petitioners. Accordingly, we direct: 1. The claims of the writ petitioners should be considered afresh in the light of this judgment vis a vis the candidates appointed on or after 18.11.99 or those in the select list who are yet to be appointed. On such consideration, if those writ petitioners are found to have superior merit in case the bonus marks of 10% and or 5% are excluded, they should be offered appointments, if necessary, by displacing the candidates appointed on or after 18.11.1999. 2. The appointments made upto 17.11.1999 need not be reopened and re-considered in the light of the law laid down in this judgment. 3. Writ Petition No. 542/2000 filed in this Court under Article 32 is hereby dismissed as it was filed nearly one year after the judgment of the High Court and no explanation has been tendered for not approaching the High Court under Article 226 at an earlier point of time." 3. 3. Writ Petition No. 542/2000 filed in this Court under Article 32 is hereby dismissed as it was filed nearly one year after the judgment of the High Court and no explanation has been tendered for not approaching the High Court under Article 226 at an earlier point of time." 3. Perusal of the aforesaid para shows that to balance the competing claims in the light of the acceptance of the perspective overruling in principle, the relief to confine only to those petitioners, who moved to the High Court and to make appointments made on or after 18.11.1999. The Hon'ble Apex Court even dismissed the writ petition preferred, on the ground of latches, as essentially it was filed after one year. By virtue of directions in main para 46, a consideration in reference of the judgment of Full Bench cannot be for those petitioners, who did not move to the High Court at that time. It seems that few petitioners came before this Court and therein direction has been given for consideration of the candidature in the light of the judgment in the case Kailash Chand Sharma (supra) and therein specific reference of para 46 has been given. 4. One of the judgment referred by learned counsel is in the case of Vijendra Sharma vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2664/2007 dated 4.2.2011. It is submitted that when the aforesaid writ petition was filed in the year 2007 and a direction for consideration has been made in the light of the judgment in the case of Kailash Chand Sharma (supra) and Deepak Kumar Suthar, the Full Bench judgment, the petitioner is also entitled for the same relief. 5. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel and find that a direction for consideration of the nature given, goes contrary to the para 46 of the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court wherein the relief has been confined only to those petitioners, who moved the High Court and to make appointments on or after 18.11.1999, thus entertaining writ petition of a candidate now goes contrary to dictum. Rather the position is that a candidate approached the Hon'ble Supreme Court directly by maintaining writ petition suffered dismissal on the ground of latches thus High Court cannot entertain a writ petition now ignoring the latches and direction of the Hon'ble Apex Court. 6. Rather the position is that a candidate approached the Hon'ble Supreme Court directly by maintaining writ petition suffered dismissal on the ground of latches thus High Court cannot entertain a writ petition now ignoring the latches and direction of the Hon'ble Apex Court. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioners has given reference to an order whereby the candidate has been given appointment. 7. Perusal of the order aforesaid shows that the same is pursuant to the decision in the writ petition, detail of which has not been given. If, it is reference to the case of Kailash Chand Sharma (supra) or Deepak Kumar Suthar, then again a petition filed either in the year 2009 or subsequent and acceptance of the same, would be nothing but going contrary to the dictum of the Supreme Court. The specific lines of para 46 are quoted hereunder again for ready reference to show that relief granted in the Kailash Chand Sharma (supra) has been confined only to few petitioners: "We consider it just and proper to confine the relief only to the petitioners who moved the High Court and to make appointments made on after 18.11.1999 in any of the districts subject to claims of the petitioners. 3. Writ petition No. 524/2000 filed in this Court under Article 32 of Constitution of India is hereby dismissed as it was filed nearly one year after the judgment of the High Court and no explanation has been tendered for not approaching the High Court under Article 226 at an earlier point of time." 8. From perusal of the part of the para quoted above, it becomes clear that relief is confined and kept limited to the petitioners therein or approached the High Court and thereby even the petition filed in the year 2000 was dismissed. Thus, there is no justification for this Court now to entertain the petition in reference to the judgment passed in the case of Kailash Chand Sharma (supra). 9. The relief sought for consideration of the case in the light of the aforesaid judgment, cannot be granted to the petitioners, who have maintain the petition now in the year 2010 for appointment in reference of an advertisement of the year 1998. 10. Accordingly, the writ petitions stand dismissed in view of the discussion made above.