Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Raja Ram vs The State Of Rajasthan on 25 July, 2022

Bench: Rekha Borana

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11905/2018 Raja Ram S/o Galba Ram, Aged About 39 Years, Village Datafali, Post- Mandwada (Khalsa), Tehsil- Pindwara, District Sirohi (Raj.).

----Petitioner Versus

1. The State of Rajasthan, Through Secretary, Rural Development And Panchayati Raj Department, Secretariat, Jaipur.

2. The Secretary, Department of Education, Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur.

3. The Director, Elementary Education, Education Department, Govt. of Rajasthan, Bikaner (Raj.).

4. The District Education Officer, Elementary Education And Addl. Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Sirohi (Raj.).

----Respondents S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11909/2018 Fuli Kumari D/o Puna Ram Garasiya, Aged About 38 Years, Village Karnawatfali Basantgarh, Tehsil Pindwara, District Sirohi (Raj.)

----Petitioner Versus

1. The State of Rajasthan, Through Secretary, Rural Development And Panchayati Raj Department, Secretariat, Jaipur

2. The Secretary, Department of Education, Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur

3. The Director, Elementary Education, Education Department, Govt. of Rajasthan, Bikaner (Raj.)

4. The District Education Officer, Elementary Education And Addl. Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Sirohi (Raj.)

----Respondents S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11910/2018 Sona Ram Garasiya S/o Ana Ram, Aged About 41 Years, Resident of Village Telpikheda, Post- Krishnaganj, Tehsil- Sirohi,

(2 of 7) [CW-5073/2015]

District Sirohi (Raj.)

----Petitioner Versus

1. The State of Rajasthan, Through Secretary, Rural Development And Panchayat Raj Department, Secretariat, Jaipur.

2. The Secretary, Department of Education, Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur

3. The Director, Elementary Education, Education Department, Govt. Of Rajasthan, Bikaner (Raj.)

4. The District Education Officer, Elementary Education And Addl. Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Sirohi

----Respondents S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11917/2018 Jetha Ram S/o Nava Ram, Aged About 38 Years, Saja Basti, Village Lotana, Post- Nandiya, Tehsil Pindwara, District Sirohi (Raj.).

----Petitioner Versus

1. The State of Rajasthan, through Secretary, Rural Development And Panchayat Raj Department, Secretariat, Jaipur.

2. The Secretary, Department of Education, Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur.

3. The Director, Elementary Education, Education Department, Govt. of Rajasthan, Bikaner (Raj.).

4. The District Education Officer, Elementary Education And Addl. Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Sirohi (Raj.).

----Respondents S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11918/2018 Fula Ram S/o Vela Ram Grasia, Aged About 37 Years, Village Aprikhera Post- Mandwara (Khalsa), Tehsil- Pindwara, District Sirohi (Raj.).

----Petitioner Versus

1. The State of Rajasthan, through Secretary, Rural Development And Panchayat Raj Department, Secretariat, Jaipur.

(3 of 7) [CW-5073/2015]

2. The Secretary, Department of Education, Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur.

3. The Director, Elementary Education, Education Department, Govt. of Rajasthan, Bikaner (Raj.).

4. The District Education Officer, Elementary Education And Addl. Chief Executive officer, Zila Parishad, Sirohi (Raj.).

----Respondents S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10451/2021 Manchha Ram Bhambhi S/o Mitha Ram, Aged About 49 Years, Village Naya Joyala, Tehsil Shivganj, District Sirohi (Raj.).

----Petitioner Versus

1. State of Rajasthan, through Secretary, Rural Development And Panchayat Raj Department, Secretariat, Jaipur.

2. The Secretary, Department of Education, Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur.

3. The Director, Elementary Education, Education Department, Govt. Of Rajasthan, Bikaner (Raj.).

4. The District Education Officer, Elementary Education, Sirohi (Raj.).

----Respondents S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10454/2021 Dayal Ram Garasia S/o Gala Ram Garasia, Aged About 41 Years, Resident Of Village Kalandri, Post Paldi, Tehsil Shivganj, District Sirohi (Raj.).

----Petitioner Versus

1. The State of Rajasthan, through Secretary, Rural Development And Panchayat Raj Department, Secretariat, Jaipur.

2. The Secretary, Department of Education, Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur.

3. The Director, Elementary Education, Education Department, Govt. of Rajasthan, Bikaner (Raj.).

4. The District Education Officer, Elementary Education, Sirohi (Raj.).

                                                                   ----Respondents



                                          (4 of 7)               [CW-5073/2015]




For Petitioner(s)        :     Mr. V.R. Choudhary
For Respondent(s)        :     Mr. K.K. Bissa, AGC with
                               Mr. G.S. Chouhan


             HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REKHA BORANA
                                    Order

25/07/2022

All the writ petitions involve common question of facts and

law and hence are decided by this common order.

The present writ petitions have been filed on behalf of the

petitioners with a prayer to be appointed on the post of

Prabodhak.

The present writ petitions relate to the recruitment process

of the year 2008. At the relevant point of time the petitioners

were not considered for appointment on the basis that the

petitioners had not acquired the eligible qualification as their

supplementary result was declared after the last date prescribed

for determination of eligibility. Aggrieved against the said action,

different writ petitions were preferred and the same were disposed

of with a direction to the petitioners to file representation to the

respondent authorities and the department was directed to

consider the same in accordance with law. It is averred that the

representations in pursuance to the said order were filed to the

respondent-department which were rejected somewhere in the

month of December 2010.

The present writ petitions have been filed in the year

2018/2021 with the submission that a similarly situated employee

Smt. Rashi Chundawat was granted appointment on 22.03.2010

whereas the representations of the petitioners were rejected in

(5 of 7) [CW-5073/2015]

the month of December 2010, i.e. after affording the appointment

to a similarly situated employee. It has been submitted that

besides Smt. Rashi Chundawat, there are certain other similarly

situated employees also who had been granted appointment.

Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submitted

that the representations of the petitioners had been rejected way

back in the year 2010 and the writ petitions have been filed in the

year 2018/2021 without any plausible cause for the said delay.

Learned counsel further submits that the unfilled vacancies

whatsoever, of Prabodhak were abolished by the State

Government on 22.11.2021 and therefore, no post remain vacant

as of date. Learned counsel submits that therefore, no

interference can be made in favour of the petitioners.

It is clear on record that the present petitions have been filed

in the year 2018/2021 without even challenging the earlier order

of the year 2010 vide which the representations of the petitioners

were rejected. The only ground stated in the present writ

petitions is that similarly situated persons have been granted

appointment and therefore, they should also be granted the same.

It is clear on record that the appointment, if any, to any similarly

situated employee had been granted way back in the year 2010

and the petitioners have prayed for similar treatment in the year

2018/2021. This Court cannot, in matters of recruitment, interfere

after a gross delay of 8/11 years. Even if it is admitted that

similarly situated employees were offered appointment, no such

interference can be made in favour of the present petitioners on

account of the delay caused in filing the present writ petitions.

The argument of the counsel for the respondents that the

present petition cannot be entertained at this belated stage is

(6 of 7) [CW-5073/2015]

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."

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 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.

Moreover, the remaining vacant posts have already been