PRATHVI SINGH JODHA Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this writ petition, the petitioner is seeking direction against the respondents to appoint him on the post of Physical Training Instructor Gr.III (in short "PTI" hereinafter) if the vacancy exists and the petitioner is qualified on merits.

(2.) THE relevant facts in nutshell are that the respondent No. 2 issued an advertisement dt. 28.07.2003 whereby the applications were invited from eligible candidates for appointment to the posts of PTI. The appointments were to be made by preparing district wise panel of the selected candidates. As per the advertisement 9 posts of PTI for Boys were advertised in Jaisalmer District, out of which six posts were to be filled in from the candidates belonging to General Category and one post each was reserved for Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Class candidates. The petitioner having requisite qualification for appointment on the said post, applied for the same in pursuance of the advertisement in Jaisalmer District under the Boys quota in General Category. After interview, the list of the candidates considered suitable for appointment was prepared by the respondents in order of merit wherein the petitioner was placed at seventh position. The select list included six persons from General Category and one from Other Backward Class. However, later a candidate was added in General Category who was ex service man and accordingly, the petitioner's name was moved to the eighth position in the select list.

(3.) THE respondents in their reply to the writ petition have taken the stand that the appointment to the selected candidates viz. Mohan Lal and Kheta Ram were accorded during the operative period of select list and no person has been appointed after the expiry of the select list. It is submitted that the inclusion of the name in the select list does not create any right in favour of the selected candidates and it is the prerogative of the employer to accord appointment or not to accord appointment. It is submitted that since the select list expired on 31.03.2004 therefore, the petitioner has no right to claim appointment merely on account of inclusion of his name in the select list. It is submitted that the writ petition seeking direction for appointment to the post has been filed by the petitioner after expiry of the select list which suffers from vice of delay and laches and therefore, deserves to be dismissed on this count alone.