Allahanoor vs State of Rajasthan and Others

B.S. Chauhan, J.—The instant writ petitions have been filed for seeking a direction to the respondents to fill-up the posts of Bhistis as per the Rules and to issue a further direction to restrain the respondents from filling-up the remaining twenty-two vacant posts of Safai-Karims by appointing persons as Sweepers till the corresponding appointments on the posts of Bhistis are not made.

The facts and circumstances giving rise to these cases are that 125 posts of Safai-Karmis were sanctioned by the State Government in the respondent Municipal Council, Pali, vide order dated 31.7.1997 and it appears that these posts were advertised by issuing advertisement in the local news-papers and a large number of persons, including the petitioners, had applied for the said post. The selection process was over and out of 125 vacancies, 103 posts have already been filled-up. The petitioners could not succeed to get appointment and hence they have approached this Court by filling these writ petitions.

It has been contended on behalf of the petitioners that the posts of Safai-Karmis had to be divided into Safai-Karmis and Bhistis In the ratio of 8:1 as after eight Sweepers, there had to be on Bhisti and it was a mandatory requirement under the Rajasthan Municipalities (Class IV Services) Rules, 1964 (hereinafter referred to as "the Rules") as the post of Bhisti found place at Serial No. 14 of the Schedule appended to the Rules. As no post had been advertised for Bhistis nor any appointment had been made on the said posts, the petitioners claim that their rights guaranteed under Articles 14, 16, 21 and 39(a) of the Constitution of India have been violated and, therefore, this Court must issue a direction as prayed for.

Petitioners have chosen not to file the advertisement inviting applications, nor the date on which the advertisement wag made, has been mentioned. It is not clear as on what date the interviews were held and on what date 103 posts of Safai-Karmis had been filled-up and appointments had been made. What was the date on which the select list was prepared, what was the life of the select list and whether the select list still has the life or not, have not been brought to the light. Further, there is no explanation as what had prevented the petitioners to challenge the advertisement itself if it did not invite applications for the posts of Bhistis and what made them to approach this Court at such a belated stage and if the advertisement itself was void, illegal and in contravention of the statutory provisions and the consequential appointments are bad, why the selected candidates have not been impleaded here as respondents. The writ petitions have been filed in a most cavalier manner and the Court is not under obligation to entertain the petitions on such vague and unsubstantiated grounds. Petitioners failed to lay down any factual-foundation and the writ petitions are liable to be dismissed only on the aforesaid grounds.

It is settled proposition of law that the petitioners must plead the case properly and substantiate their averments by adducing sufficient material before this Court and in absence of proper pleadings, the Court should not entertain the such petition. (Vide Collector of 24 Parganas and Others Vs. Lalith Mohan Mullick and Others, and M/s. Larsen and Toubro Ltd. Vs. State of Gujarat and Others, Moreover, if the select list has expired, the petitioners cannot be granted any relief whatsoever. (Vide J. Ashok Kumar Vs. State of A.P. and Others, : State of Bihar and others Vs. Md. Kalimuddin and others, : State of U. P. and others Vs. Harish Chandra and others, ; and Dr. Surendra Singh Jamwal and Anr. v. State of J & K and Ors. 996 (9) 619). Thus, no relief can be granted to the petitioners.

It is further submitted that the Jaipur Bench of this Court has entertained S.B. Civil Writ Petitions No. 2230/1998 and 3920/1998 on 4.5.1998 and 4.8.1998 respectively, and passed certain interim orders in favour of the petitioners therein. The facts on those cases are not before this Court. They may be the appropriate cases where the advertisement itself might have been challenged, moreover, the orders had been passed long back in those cases. Undoubtedly, the Courts should not and must not discriminate amongst similarly situated persons and once in interim order has been passed in favour of similarly situated persons, this Court should not refuse to entertain the petition and pass similar interim order in an identical petition.

In Vinod Trading Company Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Others, ; and Bir Bajrang Kumar v. State of Bihar and Ors. AIR 1987 SC 1345 the Apex Court has expressed the view that the Court should not pass contradictory orders in the cases where the facts and circumstances are identical. Similarly, in Vishnu Traders v. State of Haryana and Ors. 1995, (Suppl.) 1 SCC 461, the Hon''ble Supreme Court has observed as under-

In the matters of interlocutory orders, the principle of binding precedent cannot be said to apply. However, the need for consistent approach and uniformity in the exercise of judicial discretion respecting similar cause and desirability to eliminate occasion for grievance of discriminatory treatment require that all similar matters should receive similar treatment except where factual differences require a different treatment so that there is an assurance of consistency, uniformity, predictability and certainty of judicial approach.

The petitioners in the present case are not entitled for similar treatment and they cannot be permitted to place reliance on the said orders in view of the facts and circumstances mentioned hereinabove. The persons approaching the Court at a belated stage cannot be permitted to have any imputes from the order of the Court passed in favour of the parties who had prosecuted their case diligently and approached the Court in time. (Vide Jagdish Lal and others Vs. State of Haryana and others,

Thus, in view of the above, the petitions are devoid of any merit and hence dismissed accordingly.