Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Ram Chandra vs State Of Rajasthan on 3 February, 2022
Bench: Rekha Borana
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 16321/2018
Ram Chandra S/o Shri Rewant Ram, Aged About 27 Years, R/o
Village Sankhla Basti, Post Guda, Tehsil Kolayat, District Bikaner,
Rajastahn,-.
----Petitioner
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 Of Police, Armed Battalion
Rajasthan, Jaipur.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Tanwar Singh, V.C.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. A.K. Bissa, through V.C.
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REKHA BORANA
Order
03/02/2022
The present petition has been filed with an averment that the
petitioner had applied for the post of Police Constable and was
declared passed in the written examination after physical
efficiency test. A merit list was issued on 01.07.2011, in which the
name of the petitioner found place. However, as he was not
afforded appointment, the present petition has been filed on the
ground that in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.15152/2011; Madan Lal
vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors., directions have been issued for
removal of the reserve category candidates from general category,
(2 of 4) [CW-16321/2018]
therefore, the said order be implemented and the petitioner be
afforded appointment.
Counsel for the respondents submitted that it is admitted
that certain directions were issued in the case of Madan Lal
(supra) and in pursuance to the same, the State Government
proceeded on to constitute a Review Committee and after
consideration by the Review Committee, all the directions as
issued in Madan Lal's case (supra) had been followed and
implemented qua the petitioners therein.
Counsel further stated that the directions in Madan Lal's case
(supra) were not in rem and as the same was a judgment in
personam, it was applicable only to the petitioners therein.
Counsel further submitted that the present recruitment process is
of 2010 and the judgment in Madan Lal's case was passed on
27.04.2012. Even the appeal in the matter of Gaurav Pradhan &
Ors. vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (Civil Appeal No.8351/2017)
was allowed by the Hon'ble Apex Court on 18.08.2017. The
present petition has been filed by the petitioner after the
judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court, which cannot be entertained
at this belated stage.
Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
material on record.
The arguments of the counsel for the respondents that the
present petition cannot be entertained at this belated stage is
found to be tenable as it is the settled proposition of law that a
person who chose to sit tight over his right and waited for any
judgment to be passed in the case of other petitioners, cannot be
held to be entitled for any relief.
(3 of 4) [CW-16321/2018]
As held in the case of A.P. Steel Re-Rolling Mill Ltd. v.
State of Kerala and others, (2007) 2 SCC 725:-
"40. The benefit of a judgment is not extended to
a case automatically. While granting relief in a writ
petition, the High Court is entitled to consider the fact
situation obtaining in each case including the conduct
of the petitioner. In doing so, the Court is entitled to
take into consideration the fact as to whether the writ
petitioner had chosen to sit over the matter and then
wake up after the decision of this court. If it is found
that the appellant approached the Court after a long
delay, the same may disentitle him to obtain a
discretionary relief."
In the judgment in State of Uttaranchal and another v.
Sri Shiv Charan Singh Bhandari and others, 2013(6) SLR
629, Hon'ble the Supreme Court, while considering the issue
regarding delay and laches and referring to earlier judgments on
the issue, opined that repeated representations made will not
keep the issues alive. A stale or a dead issue/dispute cannot be
got revived even if such a representation has either been decided
by the authority or got decided by getting a direction from the
court as the issue regarding delay and laches is to be decided with
reference to original cause of action and not with reference to any
such order passed.
Further, a bare perusal of Gaurav Pradhan's case (supra)
makes it clear that the same was not a judgment in rem and it
was specifically limited qua the petitioners/appellants therein only.
The directions as issued by the Hon'ble Apex Court were
specifically qua the petitioners therein only and therefore, the
benefit of the same cannot be extended to any person other than
the petitioners therein and that too at such a belated stage.
(4 of 4) [CW-16321/2018]
In view of the above observations, the present writ petition
stands dismissed.
(REKHA BORANA),J
Ashutosh-85(S)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
