High Court of Rajasthan dismissed multiple writ petitions challenging rejection of appointment for the post of Prabodhak. The Court refused to interfere due to gross delay of 8-11 years and abolition of the posts by the State Government, citing laches.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
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
----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
----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
----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
----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
(3 of 7)
[CW-5073/2015]
----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
----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
----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 abolished by the State Government and therefore, no direction can be issued by this Court for recreating the said posts again.
(7 of 7)
[CW-5073/2015]
In view of the above observations, the present writ petitions
are dismissed.
All pending applications also stand disposed of.
(REKHA BORANA),J
58-64-Dharmendra/-
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the writ petitions seeking appointment as Prabodhak should be entertained despite an ultimate delay of 8-11 years?
Whether the benefit of granting appointment to similarly situated employees justifies ignoring the delay and laches by the petitioners?
Whether vacant posts abolished by the government can be recreated by a writ court?
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
A.P. Steel Re-Rolling Mill Ltd. v. State of Kerala and othersReferred¶89
(2007) 2 SCC 725 · Who else cites this
State of Uttaranchal and another v. Sri Shiv Charan Singh Bhandari and othersReferred¶91
2013(6) SLR 629
Raja Ram S/o Galba Ram
Fuli Kumari D/o Puna Ram Garasiya
Sona Ram Garasiya S/o Ana Ram
Jetha Ram S/o Nava Ram
Fula Ram S/o Vela Ram Grasia
Manchha Ram Bhambhi S/o Mitha Ram
Rekha Borana
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
