ALLAHANOOR Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE instant writ petitions have been filed for seeking a direction to the respondents to fill -up the posts of Bhistis as per the Rules and to issue a further direction to restrain the respondents from filling -up the remaining twenty -two vacant posts of Safai -Karims by appointing persons as Sweepers till the corresponding appointments on the posts of Bhistis are not made.

(2.) THE facts and circumstances giving rise to these cases are that 125 posts of Safai -Karmis were sanctioned by the State Government in the respondent Municipal Council, Pali, vide order dated 31.7.1997 and it appears that these posts were advertised by issuing advertisement in the local news -papers and a large number of persons, including the petitioners, had applied for the said post. The selection process was over and out of 125 vacancies, 103 posts have already been filled -up. The petitioners could not succeed to get appointment and hence they have approached this Court by filling these writ petitions.

(3.) PETITIONERS have chosen not to file the advertisement inviting applications, nor the date on which the advertisement wag made, has been mentioned. It is not clear as on what date the interviews were held and on what date 103 posts of Safai -Karmis had been filled -up and appointments had been made. What was the date on which the select list was prepared, what was the life of the select list and whether the select list still has the life or not, have not been brought to the light. Further, there is no explanation as what had prevented the petitioners to challenge the advertisement itself if it did not invite applications for the posts of Bhistis and what made them to approach this Court at such a belated stage and if the advertisement itself was void, illegal and in contravention of the statutory provisions and the consequential appointments are bad, why the selected candidates have not been impleaded here as respondents. The writ petitions have been filed in a most cavalier manner and the Court is not under obligation to entertain the petitions on such vague and unsubstantiated grounds. Petitioners failed to lay down any factual -foundation and the writ petitions are liable to be dismissed only on the aforesaid grounds.