AAIDANA RAM Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS intra-court appeal is said to be time-barred by 73 days. However, while ignoring the delay, we have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner-appellant on merits to find if any case is made out for interference.

(2.) THE petitioner-appellant, who had been a candidate for selection to the post of Police Constable in the recruitment made way back in the year 2001, was not accorded appointment essentially for the reason that in the character verification, it was found that he did not state the fact about his conviction in the year 1997 for an offence under Section 19/54 of the Rajasthan Excise Act wherefor the Court extended him the benefit under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act with the condition, inter alia, of his depositing an amount of Rs.300/-. The appellant appears to have made a representation in the year 2003 to the Member of Parliament on his grievance against denial of appointment. His matter was referred by the Superintendent of Police, Jalore to the Director General of Police on 25.04.2003 seeking guidance. The petitioner-appellant alleges to have made some more representations including that in the year 2005 but nothing having been done, he lately made an application, on 19.01.2011, under the Right to Information Act and thereafter, approached the Court by way of the writ petition bearing number 1018/2012.

(3.) IT is submitted that the learned Single Judge has erred in rejecting the case of the petitioner-appellant on merits and ought not to have done so when the petition was not being entertained on the ground of delay. It is also submitted that the delay, if any, in this case had been on the part of the respondents where despite the Superintendent of Police, Jalore having asked for the guidance, the officers concerned omitted to carry out the requirements on their part. It is also submitted that as per the information available, the respondents are considering and re- considering the matters relating to the recruitments of the years 2005 and 2008 and the appellant's case, being of much earlier period, i.e., the year 2001, ought to have been considered in priority. It is submitted that in the given set of facts and circumstances, the learned Single Judge was not justified in dismissing the writ petition. We are not impressed by any of the submissions.