Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 1868 (RAJ)

Prem Singh v. State Of Rajasthan

2022-06-27

INDERJEET SINGH

body2022
JUDGMENT 1. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner with the following prayer:- "It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that in the interest of justice, Your Lordships may graciously be pleased to accept and allow this writ petition and your Lordships may be pleased to- (I) Pass any writ order or direction whereby the representation order dated 12/09/2018 along with order dated 02.07.2014 and 25.06.2014 be quashed and set side and further respondent be directed to restrained from issuing new recruitment for the post of drivers. (ii) Pass any writ order or direction whereby the result be declared for the original No. of posts advertised under the advertisement of the advertisement be set aside. (iii) Pass any other appropriate order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may consider just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may also kindly be passed in favor of the humble petitioner. (iv) Cost of this writ petition may also kindly be awarded in favor of the petitioner." 2. Brief facts of the case are that in pursuance to the advertisement dated 06.08.2013 issued by the respondents the petitioner applied for the post of Driver and after participating in the selection process he was not selected by the respondents, therefore, the petitioner approached this court by filing of S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.12067/2017 which was decided by the Co- ordinate Bench of this court vide order dated 26.07.2018 which reads as under:- "At the very outset, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that at this stage, the petitioner would be satisfied, if the State- respondents are directed to consider and decide the representation within a time frame, which the petitioners are ready and willing to address within a week hereinafter. In view of the limited prayer addressed; the instant writ proceedings are closed with a direction to the petitioners to address a comprehensive representation to the respondents ventilating their grievances. In case, a representation is so addressed within the aforesaid period, the State- respondents are directed to consider and decide the same by a reasoned and speaking order as expeditiously as possible in accordance with law. However, in no case later than four weeks from the date of receipt of the representation along with a certified copy of this order. With the observations and directions, as indicated above, the writ application stands disposed off." 3. However, in no case later than four weeks from the date of receipt of the representation along with a certified copy of this order. With the observations and directions, as indicated above, the writ application stands disposed off." 3. In compliance of the order dated 26.04.2018, the petitioner submitted a representation before the respondents-Department which was decided by the respondents vide order dated 12.09.2018. 4. Grievances of the petitioner is that the respondents in an arbitrary manner reduced the number of posts, therefore, the petitioner was not selected. Counsel further submits that the petitioner came to know about the said fact in the year 2019, thereafter, he filed present writ petition challenging the action of the respondents of reducing the number of posts. 5. Heard counsel for the petitioner and perused the record. 6. This writ petition filed by the petitioner deserves to be dismissed on the ground that the advertisement in question relates to the year 2013 and in the first round of litigation the petitioner has not pressed the matter on merits while sought liberty to submit the representation before the respondents- 7. Department and the representation submitted by the petitioner was also considered and decided by the respondents in the year 2018 and the petitioner filed this writ petition in the year 2022 after a delay of four years, therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, I am not inclined to exercise the jurisdiction of this court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 8. Hence, this writ petition is dismissed.