Dismissed

Ghanshyam Goyal S/O Bhagwan Lal Goyal v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC19 May 2023CW/1598/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This bench dismissed a writ petition seeking appointment to the post of Patwari. The Court held that the petition suffered from inordinate delay of nearly nine years and lack of specific evidence regarding merit ranking or fresh vacancies, refusing to exercise jurisdiction.

What did the court decide?

The instant writ petition is hereby dismissed; stay application and other pending application(s) disposed of.

Ghanshyam Goyal S/O Bhagwan Lal Goyal Vs State of… — Service and Employment | Rajasthan HC (2023)

¶1

[2023/RJJP/011387]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1598/2023

¶4

Ghanshyam Goyal S/o Bhagwan Lal Goyal, Aged About 34 Years, R/o Village And Post Dhindhora, Tehsil Suroth, District Karauli.

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.

¶8

Board Of Revenue, Through Its Secretary (Land Records), Ajmer.

¶9

District Collector (Land Records), Bharatpur.

¶10

----Respondents

¶11

For Petitioner(s)	: Mr. Vijay Pathak
For Respondent(s)	:

¶12

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDESH BANSAL

¶13

Judgment

¶14

19/05/2023

¶15

Instant writ petition has been filed by petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking direction against respondents to give appointment to the petitioner on the post of Patwari pursuant to advertisement dated 19.02.2013.

¶16

Heard learned counsel for petitioner and perused the record.

¶17

It appears from the record that the Revenue Board, Ajmer vide advertisement dated 19.02.2013, notified 2271 posts of Patwari and for District Bharatpur, 154 posts were categorized. Learned counsel submits that petitioner applied for the post in question in District Bharatpur in the General category and scored 241.2573 marks. According to the petitioner, last cut off marks of selected candidate in the General category is 242 marks. It has been submitted that out of 154 posts,

[2023/RJJP/011387]

[CW-1598/2023]

(2 of 4)

only 152 candidates were appointed and two posts remained unfilled. According to the petitioner, last appointment was made on 11.01.2014. Thereafter, petitioner submitted one application dated 03.01.2020 under RTI Act, seeking information about the status of vacant posts. Thereafter, petitioner served one legal notice for demand of justice dated 22.12.2022, but since the same was not responded, the instant writ petition has been preferred.

¶22

Having considered the aforesaid factual matrix, it has transpired that petitioner filed instant writ petition on 13.01.2023 to seek appointment on the post of Patwari pursuant to advertisement dated 19.02.2013, on the ground that in District Bharatpur, out of 154 posts, 2 posts remained unfilled. Petitioner himself has admitted in the writ petition that the last appointment order was issued by respondents on 11.01.2014 (Ann.3). It is an admitted case of petitioner that petitioner scored lesser marks than the last selected candidate in the General category. Petitioner claims that two posts of Patwari in General Category remained unfilled and his candidature was required to be considered against such unfilled posts.

¶23

This Court is of opinion that if it was well within the knowledge of petitioner that two posts of General Category are unfilled and candidature of petitioner can be considered against such unfilled posts, the cause of action to the petitioner to claim appointment on the two unfilled posts has accrued after last appointment was granted to the candidate of General category vide order dated 11.01.2014, but, thereafter, petitioner has filed instant writ petition on 13.01.2023, it means, after a delay of near about 9 years. In order to patch up the delay, the petitioner has moved application under RTI Act on 03.01.2020 and thereafter, served a legal notice of demand of justice on

[2023/RJJP/011387]

[CW-1598/2023]

(3 of 4)

22.12.2022. This Court does not find any sufficient reason to condone the delay of 9 years occurred due to lapses on the part of the petitioner.

¶28

In addition to above, petitioner has nowhere whispered that whether after notifying the vacancy of Patwari in the year 2013, in subsequent years fresh vacancies of Patwari have been advertised or not. It may not be presumed by any stretch of imagination that alleged two vacancies, if any, were still lying vacant after expiry of a period of near about 9 years. Petitioner is admittedly lower in merit to the last selected candidate and petitioner has not disclosed his ranking. It is not the specific case of petitioner that he was next in merit and was entitled for selection against the unfilled posts, if any. The writ petition filed by petitioner seems to be for taking a chance on speculation without placing substantive material on record. No details in this respect, have been given in the writ petition.

¶29

The Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Shankara Coop. Housing

¶30

Society Lt. Vs. M.Prabhakar [(2011) 5 SCC 607] has held as under:

¶31

“46. Delay and laches is one of the facts that requires to be borne in mind by the High Courts when they exercise their discretionary power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In an appropriate case, the High Court may refuse to invoke its extraordinary powers if there is such negligence or omission on the part of the applicant to assert his rights taken in conjunction with the lapse of time and other circumstances.”

¶32

In view of above, this Court finds that the instant writ petition suffers from delay and latches as also lack of details. Even if it is assumed that two vacancies of Patwari remained unfilled in the year 2014, it is clear from the above discussion that petitioner remained slept over his right to claim appointment on the unfilled posts, now after a delay of near about 9 years, the relief prayed for in the instant writ petition cannot be said to be a justified claim. It is not a case of violation of any legal or constitutional rights of petitioner. This Court is

(4 of 4)

[2023/RJJP/011387]

[CW-1598/2023]

not inclined to exercise the writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the

¶37

Constitution of India in such a matter.

¶38

As a result, the instant writ petition is hereby dismissed.

¶39

Stay application and other pending application(s), if any, stand

¶40

disposed of.

¶41

(SUDESH BANSAL),J

¶42

SACHIN/4

Ghanshyam Goyal S/O Bhagwan Lal Goyal v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ghanshyam Goyal S/O Bhagwan Lal Goyal 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

Ladley Miya S/O Mohammad Aman Vs Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation

Ramesh Chand Jatav S/O Bhoundu Ram Jatav Vs Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut Utpadan Nigam Ltd.

Anuj Kumar Sharma S/O Sanwar Mal Sharma Vs State of Rajasthan

Karishma Daughter of Shri Om Prakash Gurjar Vs State of Rajasthan

Madhu Dayama D/O Late Puran Mal Dayama Vs State of Rajasthan

Dr. Babita Deegwal W/O Mukesh Kamal Vs State of Rajasthan