PANKAJ KUMAR JAIN Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner faced the process of selection conducted by the respondents for recruitment as Prabodhak in pursuant to the advertisement dated 2.6.2008. His candidature was rejected by treating him ineligible being lacking experience, a petition for writ, thus, was filed by him before this Court that came to be disposed of on 10.3.2010 with a direction to the respondents consider case of the petitioner for appointment on the post concerned. A contempt petition, thereafter, was preferred alleging non- compliance of the direction given in SBCWP No.6938/2008 on 10.3.2010. THE contempt petition came to be rejected on 18.7.2011 in view of the fact that necessary compliance of the direction given by this Court was already made by the respondents. This petition for writ is now preferred with allegation that the respondents have illegally denied appointment to the petitioner by not taking into consideration the period of medical leave availed by him.

(2.) HAVING considered all the facts of the case, I am not at all inclined to interfere in the matter while exercising power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The process of selection-in- question was initiated in the year 2008 and that came to be completed subsequent thereto. A direction was given to the respondents in a petition for writ preferred by the petitioner much back on 10.3.2010 to consider his case and that was subsequently considered and rejected. The contempt petition filed by the petitioner too came to be rejected on 18.7.2011. This petition for writ has now been filed on 13.4.2012. No explanation is given by the petitioner to explain the huge delay in filing the writ petition even after rejection of his candidature by the respondents and after dismissal of the contempt petition. In the cases pertaining to recruitment by way of selection delay in challenging the same is quite vital. In a selection process, which was initiated in the year 2008 and came to an end long back does not require any interference of this Court at this stage. The petition for writ, therefore, is dismissed.