GOUTAM SINGH JASROTIA Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Admit.

(2.) The communication does not indicate as to what is wanting in petitioner which excluded him from the purview of SRO 43. Such omission necessitated perusal of contemporaneous record. Its perusal suggests that application was rejected on the ground that same had been filed beyond prescribed period. To substantiate the contention reference is made to the decisions of the Apex Court in Sanjay Kumar Vs. State of Bihar and others,2002 SLJ 659 and National Hydro Electric Power Corporation Vs. Nanak Chand, 2004 AIR(SCW) 6339. Law being on more res integra that ratio descend! is binding provided facts are similar, therefore for application thereof similarity has to be established by the party who relies on the judgment. To appreciate similarity or otherwise a mention about the facts of the above said cases is called for. In Sanjay Kumar's case application was filed after several years and the court ruled that there cannot be reservation of a vacancy till bread earner's dependant becomes major unless there is a provision to that effect in the rules. In National Hydro Electric Power Corporation's case while reiterating the aforementioned principle the indulgence was declined on the ground that the claim having been laid after more than a decade same is highly belated, obviously if the petitioner's claim too suffers from equal amount of delay or is near similarity delay wise this writ petition has to meet the same fate. How far facts are similar needs to be appreciated in the light-of the pleadings of the parties and relevant to the issue being para 2 same is reproduced hereunder;

(3.) It transpires from the reply that the averment stating that application was filed in the month of July-2002 is not refuted specifically and reliance is placed on the record for purposes of exact date of application. It is also contended on the basis of record that documents were submitted in piecemeal but the record docs not contain the original application. It also does not indicate as to with whom it lies. Communication of the Chief Engineer bearing No.CE/PMM/1043 dated 22.5.2003 which recommends the petitioner to the Development Commissioner for appointment on compassionate grounds, too is silent about the date of presentation of the application. Record also does not indicate the details of the dates on which documents were produced so that contention that documents were presented in piece meal could be appreciated. In view of the stand so taken by the respondents coupled with the recitation aforementioned by contemporaneous record it has to be presumed that application was presented in the month of July 2002. Even if it is assumed that application was filed in December as argued by learned counsel for the respondents still delay runs in months which by no stretch of imagination can be said to be highly belated, therefore, the decisions are not attracted.