Arjun Kumar S/o Shree Ram Kumar vs The State of Rajasthan

The prayer in the present petition is to appoint the

petitioners against the two vacant posts of the Sweeper in

Municipality Sadulshahar.

While praying for the said relief, learned counsel for the

petitioner submitted that they were at Serial No.1 and 2 of the

waiting list in pursuance to the result declared on 19.03.2013. It

is submitted that the petitioner had filed a complaint against two

persons namely Mukesh Kumar and Ugrasen. Ultimately both the

persons who were selected were dismissed from service on

17.11.2014. The petitioners made various representations for

appointment on the said posts being in the waiting list. However,

the said representations have not been decided till date.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has been heard.

There is no explanation for the delay of 04 years except that

the representation is still pending.

So far as making repeated representations is concerned, the

Apex Court in the case of S.S. Rathore Vs. State of Madhya

Pradesh reported in 1989 (4) SCC - 582 observed that

"submission of just a memorial or representation to the head of

the establishment shall not be taken into consideration in the

matter of fixing limitation".

This view has been subsequently followed in various

judgments of the Apex Court as also in the case of Union of

India & ors. Vs. Har Dayal reported in 2010(1) SCC -394,

wherein it was observed:

"This Court has repeatedly held that merely giving representation will neither extend the limitation nor wipe out the delay and laches."

Thus, it is well settled that repeated representations do not

condone the delay and laches and the representation is not an

adequate explanation to take care of the delay. The relief under

Article 226 of the Constitution of India is a discretionary relief and

if there is an inordinate delay on the part of the petitioner in filing

the writ petition and such delay if not satisfactorily explained, the

Court may decline to intervene while exercising its jurisdiction

under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

Moreover, no rule, provision or regulation has been pointed

out to this Court to show the period for which the waiting list was

required to be kept alive. Even otherwise, the result was declared

on 19.03.2013. No date of waiting list has been mentioned but

obviously the waiting list must have been prepared at the time

when the result was declared i.e. in March, 2013. The services of

the two selected candidates were dispensed with after more than

one and half years of their selection in March, 2013. Thus, under

no circumstances, it can be imagined that the waiting list must

have been kept alive for such a long period. The waiting list being

lapsed, the writ petition deserves to be dismissed on that ground

alone. Secondly, the petitioner has taken almost four years to

approach this Court after the said two posts are stated to have

been vacated on account of the dismissal of the services of the

two selected candidates.

In view of the above, the writ petition is dismissed both on

the ground of merit as well as on delay and latches.