Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Santosh Kumar vs State Of Rajasthan on 16 December, 2021
Bench: Sandeep Mehta, Sameer Jain
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 274/2021
1. Santosh Kumar S/o Late Shri Kisan Lal, Aged About 35
Years, By Caste Harijan, R/o Ward No. 17, Valmiki Basti,
Taranagar, District-Churu.
2. Shani Kumar Harijan S/o Shri Raju Ram Harijan, Aged
About 34 Years, By Caste Harijan, R/o Ward No. 17,
Valmiki Basti, Taranagar, District-Churu.
----Appellants
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary,
Department Of Local Self Government, Rajasthan, Jaipur.
2. The Director And Deputy Secretary, Department Of Local
Self Government, Secretariat, Jaipur.
3. The Executive Officer, Municipal Board, Taranagar,
District-Churu.
4. The Chairman, Municipal Board, Taranagar, District-Churu.
5. Dharm Raj S/o Shri Vinod Kumar, By Caste Harijan, R/o
Ward No. 17, Valmiki Basti, Taranagar, District-Churu.
----Respondents
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Ramesh Kumar
For Respondent(s) :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MEHTA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SAMEER JAIN
Judgment
16/12/2021
By the Court : Per Hon'ble Jain, J.
Being aggrieved by the order dated 05.07.2019 passed by
learned Single Judge, the appellants have preferred the present
special appeal under Section 134 of Rajasthan High Court Rules.
(2 of 5) [SAW-274/2021]
Briefly stated facts of the case are that the respondents
issued a recruitment notification dated 25.05.2012 inviting
applications from the eligible candidates for appointment on the
post of 'Safai Karamchari' (sweepers) for various districts in State
of Rajasthan.
The petitioners-appellants being eligible for the said post,
submitted their application forms and, thereafter, the respondent
department called upon them for interview alongwith their original
documents. It was also conveyed that test regarding efficiency in
sweeping work will be conducted physically and an affidavit was
also sought from them in the prescribed proforma. The needful
was performed by the appellants.
Thereafter, the respondent-department informed the
petitioners-appellants and all other incumbents to appear in the
draw of lots to be conducted for the purpose of recruitment on the
post of safai karamchari and they were directed to bring their
photo id card as well. On 19.09.2014 the draw of lot was
conducted and result was declared finally on 30.09.2014 and 45
persons were offered appointment.
Since the petitioners' name did not find place in the select
list, they preferred writ petition. It is the case of the petitioners-
appellants that candidates, who were in the waiting list have been
provided appointment by the respondents without assigning any
reason. In para No.13 of the writ petition they have also
specifically submitted that petitioners' candidature has been
rejected only on the ground that the respondents have considered,
family as a one unit and since one of the family member of the
(3 of 5) [SAW-274/2021]
petitioners was already in employment, therefore, their
candidature was rejected.
The writ petition came for consideration before the learned
Single Judge and vide order dated 05.07.2019, the learned Single
Judge dismissed the same on the ground of delay and laches
because almost after lapse of 5 years from selection process, i.e.
2014, the writ petition was filed.
Being dissatisfied and aggrieved by the order dated
05.07.2019 passed by the learned Single Judge, the present
appeal was preferred with defects by the petitioners-appellants as
late as on 29.04.2021 i.e. almost one and a half years from
passing of impugned order dated 05.07.2019 and no application
for condonation of delay was filed.
Learned counsel for the petitioners-appellants submits that
inspite of the fact that the vacancies are lying vacant in the
respondent department till date, they are not providing
appointment to the petitioners-appellants, rather the respondents
have provided appointment to the persons falling in the waiting
list. In this regard, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied
upon the judgments rendered by this Court in the case of Sanjay
Kumar vs. State of Rajasthan (SBCWP No. 7752/2015), decided
on 16.02.2018 and Mala Devi vs. State of Rajasthan (SBCWP No.
6183/2014), decided on 28.01.2015.
After hearing learned counsel for the petitioners-appellants
and perusing the material available on record, it is crystal clear
that the cause of action arose upon the petitioners-appellants on
30.09.2014 when 45 persons were afforded appointment on the
(4 of 5) [SAW-274/2021]
post of safai karamchari, however, the petitioners got up from
their slumber only in the year 2019 by way of filing the writ
petition. It is an admitted fact that a time span of five years
lapsed since the selection process was over. The action of the
petitioners-appellants was highly delayed one. The petitioners-
appellants have also admitted that they were not selected only on
the account of the fact that the respondents have treated family
as a one unit and since, one of their family member is in
employment, their candidature was rejected.
The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition on the
ground of delay and laches as the petitioners-appellants failed to
plead any justifiable reasons for the delay, in action, inactivity on
their part nor were able to explain the delay of 5 years' in
approaching for the cause.
The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case Chennai Metropolitan
Water Supply and Sewage Board vs. T.T. Murli Babu reported in
(2014) 4 SCC 108 in para no.16 has held as under:
"16. Thus, the doctrine of delay and laches should not be
lightly brushed aside. A writ court is required to weigh the
explanation offered and the acceptability of the same. The
court should bear in mind that it is exercising an
extraordinary and equitable jurisdiction. As a constitutional
court it has a duty to protect the rights of the citizens but
simultaneously it is to keep itself alive to the primary
principle that when an aggrieved person, without adequate
reason, approaches the court at his own leisure or pleasure,
the Court would be under legal obligation to scrutinize
whether the lis at a belated stage should be entertained or
not. Be it noted, delay comes in the way of equity. In
certain circumstances delay and laches may not be fatal but
in most circumstances inordinate delay would only invite
disaster for the litigant who knocks at the doors of the
Court. Delay reflects inactivity and inaction on the part of a
litigant - a litigant who has forgotten the basic norms,
namely, "procrastination is the greatest thief of time" and
second, law does not permit one to sleep and rise like a
phoenix. Delay does bring in hazard and causes injury to
the lis."
(5 of 5) [SAW-274/2021]
A perusal of the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in
the case of Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewage Board
(supra), the facts and circumstances of the case and for the
reasons stated above, we are of the opinion that the present
appeal is liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay and latches
as it is settled law that "delay defeats equity" and the extra
ordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India cannot be invoked as per the convenience of
petitioners at any point of time.
In view of the above, we are of the view that no case of
interference is made out in the order passed by the learned Single
Judge.
The special appeal is, therefore, dismissed.
The stay application also stands disposed of accordingly.
(SAMEER JAIN),J (SANDEEP MEHTA),J
9-cpgoyal/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
