Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Ram Chandra vs State Of Rajasthan on 13 April, 2022
Bench: Manindra Mohan Shrivastava, Madan Gopal Vyas
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 180/2022
Ram Chandra S/o Shri Rewant Ram, Aged About 30 Years,
Village Sankhla Basti, Post Guda, Tehsil Kolayat, District Bikaner,
Rajastahn.
----Appellant
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Secretary, Department Of
Home, Secretariat, Jaipur, Rajasthan.
2. The Commandant Officer, 10Th Battalion Rac (Ir),
Bikaner, Rajasthan.
3. The Director General Of Police, Rajasthan, Jaipur.
4. The Additional Director General Office, Armed Battalion,
Rajasthan, Jaipur.
----Respondents
For Appellant(s) : Mr. M.L. Deora
For Respondent(s) : ---
HON'BLE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MR. MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MADAN GOPAL VYAS
Order
13/04/2022
This appeal is directed against the order dated 03.02.2022
passed by the learned Single Judge in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.
16321/2018 whereby the appellant's writ petition has been
dismissed as barred by delay and laches.
Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that even
though in the matter of rejection of candidature, he did not file
any petition until 2018, as orders were passed in favour of
similarly situated candidates who had already approached the
Court, he was entitled to similar orders. It is also submitted that
(2 of 3) [SAW-180/2022]
one Ganga Bishan Paliwal who filed a writ petition being S.B. Civil
Writ Petition No. 6221/2018 seeking similar directions as passed in
other cases, he has been allowed benefit as order of appointment
has been issued in favour of Ganga Bishan Paliwal vide order
dated 26.12.2018.
The petitioner remained content with rejection of his
candidature as back as in the year 2011 and did not take recourse
to his remedy under the law. It was only when other persons, who
had already filed petitions in the Court, which came to be decided
in 2018, were granted relief in their favour, petitioner approached
this Court by filing a writ petition. The learned Single Judge relied
upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of A.P. Steel
Re-Rolling Mill Ltd. V. State of Kerela and others, (2007) 2
SCC 725, wherein it was held that the benefit of judgment is not
extended to a case automatically. Further, the learned Single
Judge relied upon another judgment of the Supreme Court in the
case of State of Uttaranchal and another v. Sri Shiv Charan
Singh Bhandari and others, 2013 (6) SLR 629, wherein it was
held that repeated representations will not keep the issue alive.
Learned Single Judge took note of the fact that the order passed
in the case of other persons was not a judgment in rem and it was
specifically limited qua the writ petitioners therein only and
thereafter the directions which were issued by the Supreme Court
were also in respect of the petitioners before it.
No order has been placed before this Court to show that
relief has been granted by this Court to any other person similarly
situated as the petitioner.
Therefore, the order passed by the learned Single Judge
does not warrant any interference.
(3 of 3) [SAW-180/2022]
The appeal is dismissed.
However, considering the fact that the State has considered
the case of some other person, it will be open for the petitioner to
prefer representation before the State.
(MADAN GOPAL VYAS),J (MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA),ACJ
13-jayesh/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
