Anil Kumar S/o. Shri Jagwal Laduna vs State of Rajasthan

By way of this writ petition, the petitioners herein

have approached this Court craving for issuance of a

direction to the respondents to consider the candidature of

the petitioners and to shuffle them in the cadre of Sub-

Inspector (A.P.) according to their merit in O.B.C. category

against the vacancies occurring on account of reshuffling

undertaken in compliance of the order dated 13.1.2004

passed by this Court in writ petition no.250/1998 (Rao

Anand Kumar vs. State of Rajasthan).

Facts in brief are that the petitioners herein belong to

O.B.C. category. Both of them, having requisite

qualifications as stipulated under the Rajasthan Police

Subordinate Service Rules, 1989 (referred to herein after as

''the Rules of 1989'') applied for selection as Sub Inspectors

in pursuance of an advertisement dated 23.1.1996 issued

by the respondents. In the advertisement, vacancies were

advertised for the posts of Sub Inspector (A.P.) and Platoon

Commander, Sub Inspector (R.A.C.). Total of 214 vacancies

were advertised for Sub Inspector (A.P.) which were

distributed as below :-

109 :- General Category

34 :- Scheduled Caste

26 :- Scheduled Tribe

45 :- Other Backward Class

The petitioners submitted their duly filled in

application forms wherein they selected their preferences in

the order (1) Sub Inspector (A.P.) and (2) Platoon

Commander (R.A.C.). Upon appearance in the selection test

conducted by the R.P.S.C., the petitioners were declared

successful and were recommended for appointment as

Platoon Commanders (RAC) as per select list issued by the

R.P.S.C. The petitioners claim that two candidates Vinod

Singh and Rajendra Kumar whose names are reflected at

merit position no.123 and 125 in the select list were

selected as S.I. (A.P.) in OBC category despite the fact that

they should have been moved to the general category by

applying vertical reservation as per Article 16 of the

Constitution of India, thereby leaving 2 seats of OBC

category to be filled by candidates lower in merit. Be that

as it may, appropriate vertical reservation was not applied

by the respondents and the petitioners were instead shown

selected as Platoon Commanders (RAC) even though they

were entitled to stake claim for the posts of Sub Inspector

(AP) in the OBC category. The petitioners have further set

up a case that the selections of numerous candidates of

general and scheduled caste category were cancelled. A few

candidates did not join the posts of Sub Inspector (AP) thus

also seats fell vacant and were required to be reshuffled.

The petitioners claim to be mainly prejudiced by non-

inclusion of the above named two candidates in general

category because had they been moved vertically, the

petitioners would have become entitled to the two seats of

Sub-Inspector (AP) left vacant by the reshuffling.

An exactly identical controversy was raised by one Rao

Anand Kumar, another OBC Category candidate by filing a

writ petition no.250/1998. The petitioners upon coming to

know of filing of the said writ petition moved an application

for being transposed as petitioners therein. However, such

application was rejected on 8.10.2003 with the observation

that the petitioners had an independent cause of action and

could file a separate writ petition. Pursuant thereto, the

petitioners started collecting relevant documents so as to

file a separate writ petition. However, before they could do

so, the writ petition preferred by Rao Anand Kumar came to

be allowed vide order dated 13.1.2004 and the Court

directed that Vinod Singh and Rajendra Kumar be

considered as belonging to general category and

consequently, the resultant two posts would become

available for the OBC category candidates and Rao Anand

Kumar''s case be considered by making appropriate

reshuffling taking into account his choice and in accordance

with his merit. The petitioners claim that by deemed effect

of the aforesaid order dated 13.1.2004 and post reshuffling,

they too became entitled for consideration for selection as

S.I. (A.P.) without even preferring an independent writ

petition because they stood higher in merit as compared to

Rao Anand Kumar. They filed a representation to the

competent authority for giving appropriate effect to the

judgment dated 13.1.2004. However, the representation

thus submitted was not responded to whereupon the

instant writ petition came to be filed.

The respondents have filed a reply to the writ petition

with the assertion that the petitioners have preferred the

writ petition with great delay. The directions given by this

Court in Rao Anand Kumar''s case vide judgment dated

13.1.2004 were in persona and not in rem. The petitioners

joined duties as Platoon Commanders in the year 1997 and

approached this Court at highly belated stage without any

explanation for the inordinate delay. Thus, the claim of the

petitioners to be considered for the post of Sub Inspector

(AP) on the ground of reshuffling done in the said cadre

pursuant to the judgment passed in Rao Anand Kumar''s

case is countenanced. A further case is set up in the reply

that the vacancies occurring in the recruitment process in

question were readvertised in the year 1998 and all the

posts have since been filled under the fresh selection

process conducted by the RPSC. The vacancies on which the

petitioners stake their claim no longer exist and thus, they

are not entitled to the relief claimed for.

Shri Narpat Singh learned counsel for the petitioner

vehemently urged that the action of the respondents in not

vertically applying OBC reservation in letter and spirit of

Article 16 of the Constitution of India has resulted into the

petitioners being unjustifiably deprived of selection on the

posts of Sub-Inspector (AP). He submitted that the delay in

filing of the writ petition has no bearing on the right of the

petitioners because no sooner they became aware of the

writ petition preferred by Rao Anand Kumar, they moved an

application for being impleaded as petitioners in that writ

petition. However, this Court did not entertain the

application by observing that the petitioners had their own

independent cause to pursue and could do so by filing a

separate writ petition. Immediately thereafter, the instant

writ petition was filed. Thus, it was submitted that the plea

of the respondents regarding the writ petitioner suffering

from delay is not sustainable in law and that the petitioners

should be extended the relief prayed for.

Per contra, Shri S.S. Rathore learned counsel for the

respondents vehemently opposed the submissions

advanced by the petitioners'' counsel. He urged that the

recruitment process was completed long back in the year

1998 itself. The petitioners waited for almost 5 years

without any reason before raising a challenge to the selection process. Even after the petitioners'' application for

impleadment in Rao Anand Kumar''s writ petition was

dismissed by order dated 8.10.2003, the instant writ

petition was filed after a delay of nearly 11 months. He

further submitted that the specific plea of the respondents

in the reply that the questioned recruitment process stands

concluded and that the posts left vacant therein were filled

in the subsequent selection process is not disputed. Thus,

he urged that the writ petition should be rejected as being

devoid of any merit and on count of suffering from laches.

I have considered the arguments advanced at the Bar

and have perused the material available on record.

The fact that the petitioners'' writ petition suffers from

gross unexplained delay cannot be disputed. The petitioners

have not even raised a semblance of plea that they were

not aware of the so-called illegality in the action of the

respondents prior to filing of the writ petition by Rao Anand

Kumar. They joined the posts of Platoon Commander

pursuant to their selection in the very same selection

process. Thereafter, they moved the belated application

(after nearly five years) for being transposed as petitioners

in Rao Anand Kumar''s writ petition. The application came to

be rejected on 8.10.2003. Even thereafter, the instant writ

petition came to be filed on 4.9.2004 i.e. after nearly

eleven months. The selection process admittedly stands

concluded long back in the year 1998 itself. The

respondents have set up a specific case in their reply that

whatever posts were left vacant in the questioned selection

process were readvertised and have been filled up

thereafter. In this background, this Court is of the opinion

that the petitioners are not entitled to the relief claimed for

in the instant writ petition which suffers from gross and

unexplained laches.

In wake of the discussion made herein above, the writ

petition is devoid of any merit and is hereby rejected.

No order as to cost.