Rajesh Kumar Sharma vs State Of Rajasthan
2022 Latest Caselaw 2861 Raj/2

      HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
                  BENCH AT JAIPUR

            S.B. Civil Second Appeal No.65/2014

Rajesh Kuamr Sharma S/o Shri Shivdayal, R/o Khareri, Post
Khareri, Tehsil Bayana, District Bharatpur.
                                                                      ----Appellant
                                   Versus
1.     State   Of   Rajasthan         Through        The        District   Collector,
       Bharatpur.
2.     Director, Ayurved Department Rajasthan Ajmer.
3.     Deputy Director Sub Regional Office, Kila Bharatpur.
4.     Madan Mohan S/o Shri Shiv Kumar Ayurved Compounder
       Through The Director, Ayurved Department, Rajas
                                                                  ----Respondents

For Appellant(s)         :     Mr. Tanveer Ahmed
For Respondent(s)        :



           HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDESH BANSAL

                                Judgment

05/04/2022

1. Appellant-plaintiff has filed this second appeal assailing the

judgment and decree dated 22.07.2005 passed by Civil Judge

(Junior Division), Bharatpur in Civil Suit No.347/2002 wherein the

civil suit for declaration and permanent injunction was dismissed

and which has been affirmed in the First Appeal No.33/2005 vide

judgment dated 28.11.2013 passed by Additional District Judge,

No.2, Bharatpur.

2. It appears from the record that the vacancies for the post of

Nurse/Compounder Junior Grade were advertised in the year

1996-97 to which the appellant is one of the applicants.

Recruitment process was completed and the merit list was

(2 of 3) [CSA-65/2014]

prepared wherein the cut-off percentage of the "general category"

was fixed as 59.70%. The appellant undisputedly secured 58.64%

as such could not find place in the merit list. The appellant

thereafter did not initiate any proceedings either to assail the last

cut-off percentage or to pursue the issue of non-inclusion in the

merit list.

Later on, two other candidates namely, Rahul and Mahendra

Singh were given appointment under the orders of Court and

those two candidates were secured less cut off percentage than

the appellant. Therefore, the appellant at that juncture initially

filed a writ petition praying for appointment claiming the parity

with other two candidates namely, Rahul and Mahendra Singh but

the writ petition was dismissed. The appellant preferred special

appeal which too was dismissed. Thereafter, the appellant has filed

the present civil suit on 14.08.2002 seeking appointment pursuant

to the vacancies advertised in the year 1996-97. The trial court

considered the case of appellant on merits as also, considered the

delay on the part of appellant and dismissed his civil suit. The first

appellate court has affirmed the judgment of the trial court.

Hence, against the concurrent findings of fact and two

judgments passed by courts below, this second appeal has been

filed.

3. Learned counsel for appellant submits that since the two

persons namely, Rahul and Mahendra Singh who secured less

marks than the appellant have been given appointment, the

appellant also ought to have been considered for grant of

appointment.

4. This Court finds that appellant himself never approached the

court within time for claiming appointment on the basis of his own

(3 of 3) [CSA-65/2014]

rights. Firstly, the claim of appellant made before the High Court

by way of writ petition has been declined. Secondly, the civil suit

filed by appellant is belated and suffers from delay and laches.

Hon'ble the Supreme Court in cases of Kailash Chand

Sharma vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. reported in [(2002) 6

SCC 562] and in Chairman, State Bank of India & Anr. Vs. M.

J. James reported in [(2022) 2 SCC 301] has categorically

observed that if the party has abandoned his right for a sufficient

time, after a long lapse of time, the process of recruitment which

has culminated and has attained finality shall not be allowed to be

reopened. The ratio of law squarely apply to the present case.

Both courts below have found the appellant's suit to be suffered

from delay and laches and further being devoid of merits. This

Court, while exercising the powers under Section 100 CPC, is not

inclined to entertain the second appeal since the same does not

involve any substantial question of law. It is trite law that in

absence of any substantial question of law, the second appeal

cannot be entertained even for admission. Thus, the second

appeal is found to be bereft of merits and accordingly, the same is

hereby dismissed. No order as to costs.

5. Stay application as well as any other pending application, if

any, also stand disposed of.

6. Record of courts below be sent back.

(SUDESH BANSAL),J

SAURABH/70

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)