Ram Pratap Meena Son Of Sh. Kalu Ram ... vs The Rajasthan Public Service ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 7654 Raj/2

       HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
                   BENCH AT JAIPUR

            D. B. Special Appeal (Writ) No. 1284/2022
                                       In
                S. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 131/2018

Ram Pratap Meena Son of Sh. Kalu Ram Meena, aged about 45
years, R/o P.B. 8, Near Bus Stand, Green Park Colony, Tehsil
Chhabra, District Baran, Rajasthan.
                                                        ----Petitioner/Appellant
                                    Versus
1.     The Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Ajmer through
       it's Secretary, Ajmer, District Ajmer.
2.     Secretary,     College        Education           Department,     Jaipur,
       Rajasthan.
                                                                ----Respondents

For Appellant : Ms. Karishma Soni Advocate on behalf of Mr. Shiv Lal Meena Advocate.

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR BHARWANI Judgment 05/12/2022 Heard.

Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the

learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition on the ground of

delay and laches without affording any opportunity of hearing.

Learned counsel for the appellant would further submit

that though selection pertained to the year 2010, the appellant,

when not selected, kept on making representations seeking

disclosure of relevant information, which was not provided to the

appellant and, therefore, for want of sufficient information, the

appellant could not approach the Court of law.

(2 of 2) [SAW-1284/2022]

We have gone through the order passed by the learned

Single Judge and pleadings of the parties. It is relevant to mention

here that reply to writ petition was also filed in the case.

The admitted facts are that the selection was held in the

year 2010. It is also not in dispute that the writ petition came to

be filed as late as in 2018.

The argument of learned counsel for the appellant that

the delay of eight years ought to be condoned in larger interest of

justice, as repeated representations were made, deserves to be

rejected in view of the settled legal position that repeated

representations do not enlarge the time.

It is well settled that grant of relief under Article 226 of

the Constitution of India is discretionary relief. A litigant, who has

remained indolent and negligent, may not be granted any relief by

the Writ Court in exercise of its discretion when it is found that the

writ petition suffers from delay and laches. It is not the length of

period, but the lack of proper explanation/cause as to why the

person could not approach the Court of law. Except repeated

representations made to the authorities, we do not find that there

is any other cogent reason for us to entertain the appeal on merits

even though the appellant filed writ petition eight years after the

process of selection was over.

Therefore, in view of above, we are not inclined to

interfere with the order passed by the learned Single Judge.

This appeal is, accordingly, dismissed.

(VINOD KUMAR BHARWANI),J (MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA),J

MANOJ NARWANI /11

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)