Rajkumar and Others vs State of Rajasthan and Others

P.K. Lohra, J.—The petitioners have jointly filed this writ petition for claiming undermentioned reliefs:

It is, therefore, most humbly and respectfully prayed that this writ petition may kindly be allowed and by an appropriate writ, order or direction:

(i) The respondents may kindly be directed to consider the case of the petitioners on the post of Teacher Grade-III and accord the appointment with all consequential benefits w.e.f. The date from which less meritorious candidates are given appointment.

(ii) Any other appropriate writ, order or direction which this Hon''ble Court deems just and proper may kindly be passed in favour of the petitioners.

For claiming the aforementioned reliefs, the petitioners have averred in the writ petition that the lis involved in the present writ petition is squarely covered by the verdict of this Court, rendered at Jaipur Bench, in case of Neeraj Saxena Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (SB CWP No. 6829/2006 decided on 23.1.2009. The petitioners have placed on record a copy of the said verdict which is neither certified nor authenticated one.

While adverting to the factual aspects of the matter, the petitioners have averred in the writ petition that the respondents initiated the process for recruitment to the post of Teacher Grade-III, vide notification dated 15.6.1998 and pursuant thereto, being eligible, all the petitioners have offered their candidature for selection. After scrutiny of the applications, the respondents have prepared a merit list of eligible candidates, indicating that the petitioners have secured 67.47%, 65.47% and 61.22% marks respectively. The petitioners have made specific averments in the writ petition that the provision incorporated in the advertisement for providing bonus marks to the resident of particular District and Rural Area was assailed before this Court in case of Deepak Kumar Suthar and this Court has decided to hold that extending benefit of Bonus Marks to the resident of Rural Area and the particular District is dehors the law. In the said verdict, this Court has protected the appointments already accorded to some of the incumbents. Ultimately, the matter went up to the Hon''ble Apex Court and the Apex Court has upheld the said view of this Court in Kailash Chandra Sharma''s case. Referring to the verdict of the Hon''ble Apex Court dated 30.7.2002, the petitioners have mentioned in the writ petition, that the relief granted by this Court was modified, in as much as, the verdict of this Court whereby relief was confined to only those incumbents who were appointed uptil 17.11.1999 kept intact but the Apex Court has further directed the respondents to re-open and re-consider cases of these incumbents, who were accorded appointments subsequent to 17.11.1999 and prepare a fresh list by reducing the bonus marks awarded to the incumbents on the basis of their being resident of a particular District in Rural Area. The petitioners have asserted with full emphasis that they are meritorious than the other incumbents, who have been accorded appointments without material particulars, in fact pleadings in this behalf are absolutely vague, cryptic and un-specific. The petitioners have also placed on record communications dated 07.1.2003, 1.3.2006 and 24.2.2006 respectively.

Buttressing their grievances, the petitioners have also averred in the writ petition that the Government has issued directions to all Zila Parishads to accord appointment on the post of Teacher Grade-III, after deducting bonus marks and has further ordered for constituting a high level committee vide order dated 28.1.2004 under the Chairmanship of Secretary, Department of Elementary and Secondary Education to resolve the issue perpetually. As per the petitioners, final report and recommendations of the Committee has not been published.

For pressing claim for the desired reliefs, the petitioners have also taken shelter of the fact that to the best of petitioners'' knowledge, the respondents have accorded appointment to some of the incumbents vide order dated 04.5.2009 in compliance of verdict in Deepak Vaishnav Vs. State of Rajasthan. That apart, while referring to the Division Bench judgment of this Court at Jaipur Bench dated 09.1.2009 in DBC Special Appeal (W) No. 448/2005 (Anil Kumar Sharma Vs. State of Rajasthan) wherein certain directions were issued to consider the case of the petitioner in that petition, the petitioners have craved the same relief. Although, the petitioners have placed on record the verdict of Division Bench dated 09.1.2009 but, surprisingly, the copy annexed with the writ petition is neither certified nor a authenticated one.

I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the materials placed on record.

There is no quarrel in the factual position that the advertisement for recruitment to the post of Teacher Grade-III was issued in the year 1998 and the selection process has prolonged due to pendency of the writ petitions. Finally, the lis was adjudicated by the Division Bench of Jaipur vide its verdict dated 09.1.2009 (Annexure/11) and the Government has taken steps for implementation of the said verdict. The verdict of the learned Single Judge in case of Neeraj Saxena (supra) was also rendered as back as on 23.1.2009 and in all respects the same verdict must have been given effect to. After rendering of the verdict of the learned Single Judge more than four years have elapsed and the present petition has been laid by the petitioners on 26.4.2013, therefore, in my view, the writ petition suffers from the vice of delay and laches. From the averments made in the writ petition, it is amply clear that the petitioners have not made any endeavour to explain this inordinate delay and the averments to this effect are conspicuously missing in the writ petition. As the matter pertains to recruitment and the advertisement of the year 1998, in my view, at such a belated stage, no indulgence can be granted to the petitioners.

It is a trite law that extraordinary jurisdiction enshrined under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is founded on equitable considerations and the principle that delay defeats equity is having fullest application in such proceedings. Therefore, the petitioners are liable to be non suited solely on the ground of delay and laches. Reliance in this behalf can profitably be made to a decision of Apex Court in case of The Municipal Council, Ahmednagar and Another Vs. Shah Hyder Beig and Others, The petitioners while examining the purport of equitable jurisdiction under Article 226 has made following observations:-

14 The High Court has thus misplaced the factual details and misread the same. It is now a well-settled principle of law and we need not dilate on this score to the effect that while no period of limitation is fixed but in the normal course of events, the period the party is required for filing a civil proceeding ought to be the guiding factor. While it is true that this extraordinary jurisdiction is available to mitigate the sufferings of the people in general but it is not out of place to mention that this extraordinary jurisdiction has been conferred on to the law courts under Article 226 of the Constitution on a very sound equitable principle. Hence, the equitable doctrine, namely, " delay defeats equity" has it fullest application in the matter of grant of relief under Article 226 of the Constitution. The discretionary relief can be had provided one has not by his act or conduct given a go-by to his rights. Equity favours a vigilant rather than an indolent litigant and this being the basic tenet of law, the question of grant of an order as has been passed in the matter as regards restoration of possession upon cancellation of the notification does not and cannot arise. The High Court as a matter of fact lost sight of the fact that since the year 1952, the land was specifically reserved for public purposes of a school playground and roads in the development plan and by reason therefor, the notification to acquire the land has, therefore, been issued under the provisions of the Act as stated above.

In this view of the matter, from any angle I am not inclined to grant any sort of indulgence to the petitioners and the writ petition merits dismissal.

Before parting, I am hasten to add that the Registry must ensure that if in any writ petition, uncertified or unauthenticated copy of any order or verdict of the Apex Court/this Court is filed as annexure, then the said petition may not be entertained and the same may be placed in the defect side. The Registry is directed to ensure compliance of the order. Resultantly, there is no merit in this writ petition and the same is hereby dismissed summarily.