RAM GOPAL RAIGAR Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) WITH the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the matter was taken up for final disposal at this stage.

(2.) 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): -

(3.) 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.