Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 2144 (RAJ)

Pavan Kumar v. State of Rajasthan

2014-12-16

NIRMALJIT KAUR

body2014
Judgment : Nirmaljit Kaur, J. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking appointment to the post of Teacher, Grade-III against the post advertised in the year 1998. In para 2 of the petition, it is mentioned that the appointments were finalized in the year 2003 after the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Kailash Chandra Sharma Vs. State, reported in 2002 (6) SCC 571, vide which, the issue with respect to awarding of bonus marks to the resident of district and residents of rural areas of the districts was held to be without any basis. Thereafter, the State Government was directed to re-determine the merit of the petitioners, who had filed various writ petitions before the High Court and to make appointment vis-a-vis the candidates appointed on or after 18.11.1999. The directions of the Hon'ble Apex Court read as under:- “46.... 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 18.11.1999 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 reconsidered 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.” Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that in pursuance to the fresh consideration vis-a-vis the candidates appointed on or after 18.11.1999, one Ashok Kumar Gupta, who secured 56.61% marks was appointed vide order dated 25.1.2008, whereas, the petitioner was higher in merit securing 59.89% marks. The said argument has no merit as the petitioner never challenged the appointment of Ashok Kumar Gupta at that point of time and has filed the present petition now in the year 2014. The said argument has no merit as the petitioner never challenged the appointment of Ashok Kumar Gupta at that point of time and has filed the present petition now in the year 2014. Even otherwise, the aforesaid direction No.3 of the Hon'ble Apex Court is clear, vide which, a candidate who had filed Writ Petition No.542/2000 before the Hon'ble Apex Court under Article 32 was dismissed as it was filed after one year of the judgment passed by the High Court. Similarly, the petitioner is filing the present petition after about almost 7 years of the appointment given to Ashok Kumar. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that one Neeraj Saxena has granted appointment in 2014 itself, hence the department should consider the petitioner's case as well. However, the said submission too has no merit. Neeraj Saxena has filed writ petition before the High Court in the year 2006 titled as Neeraj Saxena Vs. State & Ors. (S.B.Civil Writ Petition No.6829/2006). The same was decided on 23.1.2009 wherein a direction was issued to the respondents to consider the case of Neeraj Saxena for appointment. The respondents challenged the said order before the Division Bench. However, the appeal filed by the respondents was dismissed. Since, no appointment letter was issued, Neeraj Saxena filed contempt petition. Thereafter, the respondents gave appointment only now on 8.9.2014. Whereas, the petitioner has challenged the advertisement of the year 1998 only now in the year 2014. No doubt, Neeraj Saxena has been granted appointment order only now in the year 2014 but the same is in pursuance to the order passed by this Court in S.B.Civil Writ Petition No.6829/2006, decided on 23.1.2009. Neeraj Saxena had filed the writ petition way back in the year 2006, which was decided in the year 2009. When the respondents did not comply with the direction of the Hon'ble Apex Court, he was forced to file contempt petition before the High Court and it was only in pursuance to the contempt petition that the appointment order was finally issued now in the year 2014. Neeraj Saxena had approached the Court much earlier after the respondents revised the merit list as per the direction of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Kailash Chand Sharma (supra). Neeraj Saxena had approached the Court much earlier after the respondents revised the merit list as per the direction of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Kailash Chand Sharma (supra). The delay on the part of the respondents in issuing the appointment letter to Neeraj Saxena inspite of the direction of the High Court cannot be a ground to condone the length of delay and latches on the part of the petitioner in challenging the merit list, which was finalized in the year 2003. The Madras High Court in the case of S. Ahmed Vs. The State of Tamil Nadu, [W.P.(MD). No.10547 of 2011, decided on 16.9.2011] while relying on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of M/s Rup Diamonds and Ors. Vs. Union of India & Ors., reported in (1989) 2 SCC 356 observed as under:- “those people who were sitting on the fence till somebody else took up the matter to the court for refund of duty, cannot be given the benefit. In that context, Their Lordships held as follows: "Petitioners are re-agitating claims which they had not pursued for several years. Petitioners were not vigilant but were content to be dormant and chose to sit on the fence till somebody else's case came to be decided. Their case cannot be considered on the analogy of one where a law had been declared unconstitutional and void by a court, so as to enable persons to recover monies paid under the compulsion of a law later so declared void. There is also an unexplained, inordinate delay in preferring the present writ petition which is brought after a year after the first rejection. As observed by the Court in Durga Prashad case, the exchange position of this country and the policy of the government regarding international trade varies from year to year. In these matters it is essential that persons who are aggrieved by orders of the government should approach the High Court after exhausting the remedies provided by law, rule or order with utmost expedition. Therefore, these delays are sufficient to persuade the Court to decline to interfere. In these matters it is essential that persons who are aggrieved by orders of the government should approach the High Court after exhausting the remedies provided by law, rule or order with utmost expedition. Therefore, these delays are sufficient to persuade the Court to decline to interfere. If a right of appeal is available, this order rejecting the writ petition shall not prejudice petitioners' case in any such appeal." Thus, it is a well settled proposition of law that those persons who approach the Court after a long delay, relief may be denied on the ground of delay and latches irrespective of the fact that they are similarly situated to those candidates who have got the benefit under the same judgment. No case is made out to interfere in the writ jurisdiction.