Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Devi Lal vs State Of Rajasthan on 25 February, 2021
Bench: Dinesh Mehta
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3587/2021
Devi Lal S/o Shri Gulab Chand, Aged About 42 Years, By Caste
Bheel (St), Resident Of Village Uchiyawada, Tehsil Chitari,
District Dungarpur (Rajasthan).
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary, Department Of
Local Self, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.
2. Municipal Council, Banswara, Through Its Commissioner.
3. Chief Execution Officer, Municipal Council, Banswara.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr.Shambhoo Singh
For Respondent(s) :
JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA
Judgment
25/02/2021
1. By way of the present writ petition, the petitioner has sought
direction to the respondents to permit him to join in furtherance of
appointment order dated 14.7.2018.
2. The petitioner has approached this Court with a specific case
that consequent to his selection as Safai Karmachari pursuant to
draw of lots held in pursuance of recruitment of April, 2018, an
order dated 14.7.2018 came to be issued in his favour.
3. According to petitioner, the appointment order aforesaid was
firstly sent at Puchhiyawada, Galiyakot, District Dungarpur, of
course at an address which was given by the petitioner while
submitting the application, but the same could not reach on time
as he had shifted his residence at Puchhiyawada, Chitari.
(2 of 3) [CW-3587/2021]
4. Indisputably, the petitioner has received the appointment
order dated 14.7.2018 later at his residence at Chitari, which is
evident from Annex.4 at page 26, though it was initially sent at
Galiyakot.
5. The petitioner did not join within the stipulated time in the
appointment order whereafter, he has now approached this Court,
after more than 30 months.
6. Though, there was a provision for extension of time of
joining, the petitioner has not made any such request for
extension and has come with a lame excuse that when he
contacted the respondent Municipal Council, he was informed that
a litigation is pending in the Court and he will be allowed to join
thereafter.
7. The petitioner has sprung into action only on being aware of
notification dated 5.2.2021, inviting fresh applications for the post
of Safai Karamchari.
8. The petitioner's contention that he was under bonafide
impression that after the disposal of Virendra Singh's case, he will
be permitted to join, is neither factually established nor can the
same be believed.
9. The petitioner did not join within time despite having
received the appointment order for no good reasons. He did not
even apply for extension and slept over his rights for about three
years.
10. This Court neither finds any legal right in petitioner's favour,
as new recruitment notice has been issued. There is also no
equity in petitioner's favour for which powers enshrined under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India can be exercised.
11. The writ petition is, therefore, dismissed.
(3 of 3) [CW-3587/2021]
12. The stay application also stands disposed of.
(DINESH MEHTA),J
222-CPGoyal/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
