RAMANUJ SHARMA Vs. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard. This petition has been filed by the petitioners being aggrieved by order dated 09.12.2013 by which the petitioners' representation seeking appointment on the post of Shiksha Karmi in Panna District, has been rejected. The petitioners submit that a similar petition registered as W.P. Nos. 1686/2014, 5181/2016, 14557/2015 and 5161/2016 have been disposed of by this court on 09.02.2015 directing the respondents/authorities to reconsider and decide the representation of the petitioners in the light of the order passed by a Division Bench of this court in LPA No. 48/2002. From a perusal of the petition it is evident that initially the petitioners along with others had filed W.P. No. 7544/2012 and other petitions which were disposed of by this court with a direction to the respondents/authorities to consider the representation of the petitioners therein, in the light of the order passed in LPA No. 48/2002. It is evident from a perusal of the impugned order dated 09.12.2013 (Annexure P/1) that the representations of the petitioner in W.P. No. 6105/2013, 7544/2012, 8452/2013, 9035/2013, 10447/2013, 11286/2013 and 2856/2013 have been considered and rejected by the authorities on the ground that there were illegalities in the selection and therefore no order in their favour could be passed. It is also apparent from the statement made by the petitioners in the writ petition that certain other petitions were also filed before this court against the aforesaid order dated 09.12.2013 which have been disposed of by this court directing the authorities concerned to reconsider and decide the representation of the petitioners in the light of the order passed by the Division Bench of this court in LPA No. 48/2002, as directed earlier. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that keeping the concept of parity in mind, the present petition may also be disposed of with similar directions to the authorities concerned to re -consider the representation of the petitioners in the light of the order passed by the Division Bench of this court in LPA No. 48/2002.

(2.) Before I consider the prayer of the learned counsel for the petitioners for disposing of the petition in similar terms, I think it proper and necessary to consider the few facts to ensure that the orders passed by this court are not misinterpreted and misused. The selection process in the instant case in respect of which the representation has been filed by the petitioners, was actually initiated by the authorities in the year 1995 which became subject matter of writ petition before this court and the learned Single Judge of this court allowed the petition quashing the entire selection on the ground that it suffered from several illegalities and irregularities. The order passed by the learned single judge was assailed in LPA No. 48/2002 which was ultimately disposed of with a direction to appoint 11 persons specifically mentioned and stated in paragraph 9 of the order passed in the aforesaid LPA as Samvida Shala Shikshak and not Shiksha Karmi Grade -III and while doing so the order of the learned single judge was set aside and the appeal was disposed of. From a perusal of the order passed in the LPA No. 48/2002 which has been placed before this court, it is clear that the selection proceedings initiated in the year 1995 stood finally concluded and came to an end.

(3.) It is also an undisputed fact that the petitioners and similarly situated other persons who have filed the recent petition, did not assail the selection process and appointment made by the respondents/authorities in the year 1995 nor were they party before the Division Bench in LPA No. 48/2002 which was decided on 23.10.2003. Apparently, the petitioners and others have filed a representation before the authorities seeking appointment as Shiksha Karmi in respect of the selection proceedings that were initiated in the year 1995 and stood concluded by the order of the Division Bench in LPA No. 48/2002 on 23.10.2003 after a long lapse of nearly 15 -20 years and therefore, there is an apparent unexplained delay and laches on the part of the petitioners in approaching the respondents and filing the petition. However, the representation filed by the petitioners had been entertained by the authorities, therefore, this court disposed of W.P. Nos. 7544/2012, 10447/2013 and 11286/2013 in the first round at the initial stage with a direction to the authorities to decide the representation keeping in mind the order passed by the Division Bench in LPA No. 48/2002. The aforesaid observation was made by this court in W.P. Nos. 7544/2012, 10447/2013 and 11286/2013 with a view to bring to the notice of the authorities that the matter stood finally concluded by an order of the Division Bench of this court in LPA No. 48/2002 way back in the year 2003 itself and in the light thereof to consider as to whether or not any relief could be granted to the petitioners after a long lapse of time. It is also settled law that as this petition suffers from tremendous unexplained delay and laches on the part of the petitioners as the petitioners had failed to approach this court in the year 1995 itself against their non -selection or immediately thereafter and therefore, they cannot claim parity with the petitioners who had approached this court immediately and vigilantly in the year 1995 in view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the cases of Karnataka Power Corporation Ltd. Chairman and Managing Director and another Vs. K. Thangappan and another (2006) 4 SCC 322, The New Delhi Municipal Council Vs. Pan Singh and others (2007) 9 SCC 278, , S.S. Balu and another Vs. State of Kerala and others (2009) 2 SCC 479, and Union of India and another Vs. S.S. Kothiyal and others (1998) 8 SCC 682