Dismissed

Narendra Kumar Pareek v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC2 Sept 2022CW/16069/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court dismissed a belated writ petition regarding teacher recruitment, rejecting it due to gross delay and laches in challenging a 2004 order stemming from a 1998 selection process. The court held the petition could not be entertained after a 15-year lapse. Quality: thin

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was dismissed on the grounds of gross delay, laches, and lack of entitlement to grant of relief.

Narendra Kumar Pareek Vs State of Rajasthan — Service and Employment | Rajasthan HC (2022)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT

¶2

JODHPUR

¶3

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 16069/2019

¶4

Narendra Kumar Pareek S/o Shri Surajmal Pareek, Aged About 45 Years, By Caste Brahmin, Resident Of Village Post Office Deeplana, Tehsil Nohar, District Hanumangarh (Rajasthan).

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary, Education Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.

¶8

1. The Director, Secondary Education, Bikaner (Rajasthan). 3. The Deputy Director, Secondary Education, Jaipur (Rajasthan).

¶9

1. The Deputy Director, Secondary Education, Churu (Rajasthan).

¶10

----Respondents

¶11

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sameer Pareek with Mr. Harshad Bhadu

¶12

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REKHA BORANA Order

¶13

02/09/2022

¶14

The present writ petition has been filed against the order dated 24.01.2004 whereby the representation of the petitioner has been rejected.

¶15

The case of the petitioner is that he applied in pursuance to the advertisement for the post of Physical Teacher Grade-II in the year 1998. At the first instance his candidature was not considered on the premise that the qualification of B.P.Ed. which he possessed was not the required qualification in terms of the advertisement. At that instance, the writ petition was preferred by the petitioner and the same was decided with the direction to the respondent department to consider the candidature of the petitioner in light of the judgment passed in Ashok Kumar

¶16

Sharma Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (S.B.C.W.P. No.6286/96, decided on 21.05.1999) reported in 2002(6)

¶17

(2 of 3)

¶18

[CW-16069/2019]

¶19

SCC 562 . Ultimately, following the guidelines as issued in Ashok Kumar Sharma’s case (supra) a revised merit list was issued by the department on 21.01.2001. But the petitioner’s name did not find place in the said revised merit list also and when inquired, it was informed that he was not granted the bonus marks and therefore, did not stand in the merit list. The said action of the department was again challenged by the petitioner by way of a writ petition (S.B.C.W.P. No.9398/2002) which was decided vide order dated 18.12.2002 with the direction to the respondent authorities to decide the representation of the petitioner in light of the judgment passed in Kailash Chand Sharma Vs. State of Rajasthan and Ors. (W.P.(C) No.3928 of 1998) .

¶20

In pursuance to the order dated 18.12.2002, the petitioner preferred a representation on 02.01.2003 which again when not decided by the respondent authorities, a writ petition (S.B.C.W.P. No.3078/2003) was preferred and vide order dated 09.07.2003, the respondent authorities were again directed to decide the representation of the petitioner within a period of three months. Ultimately, the representation of the petitioner was decided vide order dated 24.01.2004 which is the order under challenge in the present petition.

¶21

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the rejection of the representation of the petitioner has been made on the premise that he preferred a writ petition in the year 2002 and therefore, was not entitled for bonus marks in terms of Kailash Chandra Sharma’s case (supra) wherein it was provided that the candidates who had not filed a writ petition on or before November 17, 1999 would not be entitled to appointment by calculation of the bonus marks.

¶22

(3 of 3)

¶23

[CW-16069/2019]

¶24

Learned counsel submitted that the present petitioner could not have been governed by the said cut-off date as in the present case, it was only after the issuance of the revised merit list by the department on 21.01.2001 that the issue of non-grant of bonus marks to the petitioner arose. Therefore, he could not have preferred a writ petition prior to November 17, 1999.

¶25

True it is that the cause of action for grant of bonus marks to the petitioner arose for the first time in the year 2001 but then this Court cannot ignore the fact that ultimately the representation of the petitioner was decided on 24.01.2004 and the present writ petition challenging the said order had been preferred in the year 2019. Therefore, even if there is some merit in the argument of learned counsel for the petitioner, the present petition cannot be entertained on the ground of gross delay and laches. This Court cannot interfere in an order passed in the year 2004 in a writ petition preferred in the year 2019 and that too pertaining to a selection process of the year 1998. No plausible cause or reason for filing the present writ petition with the gross delay has been submitted in the present writ petition. It is quite natural that in pursuance to the recruitment process of 1998, eligible and the selected candidates would have been accorded appointment way back.

¶26

Therefore, in view of the above observations, the present writ petition cannot be entertained by this Court at this belated stage and the same is therefore dismissed.

¶27

(REKHA BORANA),J

¶28

5-AnilKC/-

Narendra Kumar Pareek v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Narendra Kumar Pareek v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Lalmani Tripathi Vs State and Anr.

Deepak Kumar Khatri Vs State and Ors.

Pushpa Solanki Vs State of Rajasthan

Laxmi Vs the State of Rajasthan

Mamta Panwar Vs State and Ors.

Ronak Joshi Vs State of Rajasthan