Ram Gopal Raigar vs State of Rajasthan

Veerendra Singh Siradhana, J.—With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the matter was taken up for final disposal at this stage.

The petitioner is aggrieved of inaction of the respondents in not considering his case for re-appointment/reinstatement in service in pursuance to the directions issued by this Court in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6351 of 1990 (Ram Pratap v. State of Rajasthan & Ors.), decided vide judgment and order dated 9th October, 1991, and therefore, has approached this Court praying for the following relief(s):-

(i) to direct the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for re-appointment/taking back in service in pursuance to directions of this Hon''ble Court in SBCWP No. 6351/190 dt. 9/10/91 and thereafter, re-appoint the petitioner as Class-IVth employee from the date the other similarly situated candidates were given re-appointment in pursuance of said directions of this Hon''ble Court.

(ii) to direct the respondents to further award all the arrears of salary and other consequent benefits such as seniority, selection grades etc. treating the petitioner to have been appointed from the date similarly situated persons were appointed with other benefits & costs.

Shorn off unnecessary details, the skeletal material facts indispensable for appreciation of the controversy are: that a batch of writ application was disposed of adjudicating upon the impugned order dated 30th October, 1990; issued for termination of services of the employees, who were appointed between January, 1990 to June, 1990, for the same being arbitrary, illegal and unjustified. This Court having considered the controversy adjudicated upon the batch of writ applications, lead case being Ram Pratap v. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (S.B. Civil Writ Petition Number 6351 of 1990); with certain directions contained therein. It is pleaded case of the petitioner that in pursuance to the directions issued by this Court vide judgment and order dated 9th October, 1991; the employees who were working as Class-IV Employee and were similarly situated as the petitioner, have been taken back in service long back, but the petitioner has been denied the same treatment on the pretext that the record relating to the earlier appointment of the petitioner as Class-IV Employee, is not available with the office of respondent number 4. After serving a notice for demand of justice, along with the relevant document, but having received no response, the petitioner has instituted the writ proceedings.

In response to the notice of the writ application, the respondents have filed their reply repelling the claim of the petitioner. However, admitting the fact that the petitioner was appointed in Government B.D.M. Hospital, Kotputli, Jaipur, on 31st August, 1989, and joined his duties on 8th September, 1989. It is further pleaded that ex-employees of the department of medical, who had completed 90 days of service, were given preference and who ever applied in response to advertisement dated 19th August, 1993 (Annexure-R/1), issued in compliance of the directions issued by this Court vide judgment and order dated 9th October, 1991, were accorded appointment on being successful fulfilling the terms and conditions of the advertisement inviting applications. It is further pleaded that the advertisement made a specific stipulation, calling upon the intending and eligible candidates, to participate in the selection process conducted in compliance of the judgment and order passed by this Court dated 9th October, 1991; in case of Ram Pratap (supra). The eligible and intending candidates were called upon to submit their applications for consideration of their candidature through Registered A.D. Post and the application ought to be received before 5.00 P.M. with further stipulation that any application received thereafter, was not to be considered/entertained. According to the learned counsel for the respondents, there is not even an iota of evidence to substantiate the fact that the petitioner, in fact, even submitted any application for consideration of his candidature in, response to the advertisement dated 19th August, 1993. Moreover, the petitioner has resorted to the internal communication of the department and did not take any step for almost a decade after the recruitment process conducted and concluded, in compliance of the directions issued by this Court in case of Ram Pratap (supra). The effort of the petitioner in referring to the internal communication of the department and serving notice for demand of justice, appears to be a pretext to cover up his own fault for not participating in the selection process. Thus, the writ application suffers with the vice of delay and laches and therefore, merits rejection on that count as well. Referring to the communication dated 13th May, 2005, the learned counsel would further submit that in fact, the petitioner neither made any application for consideration of his candidature nor participated in the selection process. The fact of his appointment as Class-IV Employee, has also been denied.

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and with their assistance, perused the materials available on record.

The fact that the respondents conducted recruitment process by issuing an advertisement dated 19th August, 1993 (Annexure-R/1), inviting applications from the eligible candidates for consideration of their candidature for appointment, in compliance of the directions issued by this Court in case of Ram Pratap (supra), specifically stipulated a condition that the application must be received in the concerned office, on or before 5.00 P.M. of 19th September, 1993, and any application thereafter, was not be entertained for the purpose of recruitment process. On being queried by this Court, the learned counsel for the petitioner could not furnish any documentary evidence substantiating the fact that the petitioner has participated in the selection process in pursuance to advertisement dated 19th August, 1993.

This Court while adjudicating upon the controversy raised in the batch of writ applications, lead case being Ram Pratap (supra), while disposing of the writ applications, held thus:-

These writ petitions are, therefore, disposed of in the following manner:-

(1) Claim of the petitioners for quashing of the orders of termination of their services and for their reinstatement in service is rejected;

(2) The respondents should, however, pay to the petitioners salary for the entire period for which their appointments have subsisted. They shall also get one month''s salary. This payment shall be made within a period of three months of submissions of certified copy of this order;

(3) The respondents should determine the vacancies in Class-IV Service for the entire Medical & Health Department within a period of three months of the date of receipt of copy of this order and make regular appointments against these vacancies in accordance with the provisions of Rajasthan Class-IV Services (Recruitment and Other Service Conditions) Rules, 1963. The respondents should take into account those vacancies against which casual or daily wage earners are working at present. Preference should be given in appointment to those candidates who were appointed as daily wagers or who were appointed on part-time basis. Those candidates, who were appointed on daily wages or on part-time basis, should be treated as within any limit for the purpose of being appointed afresh on the basis of vacancies determined as per the Court''s direction;

(4) The Government should not make appointment on daily wage basis in future. However, if any contingency exists or arises in future for specified work of short duration, Government may engage part-time employees or enter into agreement for appointment on contract basis, but such engagement should be done only to meet with the emergent situations and such engagement/appointment shall not continue beyond a period of three months;

(5) The Government should expedite the enquiry in the matter alleged irregularities in the making of appointments and the financial loss suffered by the Government shall be recovered from defaulting officers/employees.

(6) Parties are left to bear their own costs.

A bare perusal of the directions issued by this Court, as extracted herein above in the case of Ram Pratap (supra), would reveal that the respondents initiated the recruitment process in compliance thereof by issuing advertisement dated 19th August, 1993, with the date and time stipulated therein for receipt of the application from the eligible candidates. The petitioner has maintained a complete silence for over a decade after the decision in case of Ram Pratap (supra), by this Court with the directions, which have been complied with by the respondents. The petitioner has referred to the internal communications of the department from 13th August, 2003, onwards.

Further, there is not even an iota of evidence to substantiate the fact that the petitioner ever participated in the selection process concluded and conducted in pursuance to the directions issued by this Court in the case of Ram Pratap (supra). A complete silence by the petitioner for over a decade, in the face of directions issued by this Court vide judgment and order dated 9th October, 1991, leaves no doubt in my mind that the writ proceedings instituted suffers with vice of undue, inordinate and unexplained delay for over a decade. Furthermore, if at all, the petitioner having participated in the selection process conducted and concluded in compliance of the directions made by this Court in the case of Ram Pratap (supra), is not entitled to any relief.

For the reasons and discussions herein above, the writ petition is devoid of any substance and lacks in merit and therefore, deserves to be dismissed.

Ordered accordingly.

However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.