Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Shaitan Singh Rathore And Anr vs State Of Rajasthan And Ors on 16 February, 2022
Author: Rekha Borana
Bench: Rekha Borana
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 16686/2017
1. Shaitan Singh Rathore S/o Shri Udai Singh Rathore, B/c
Rajput, R/o Kapoordi, Tehsil Baytu District Barmer Raj.
2. Durga Singh Rathore S/o Shri Madan Singh Rathore, R/o
Village Bittan, Tehsil Merta City, District- Nagaur Raj.
----Petitioners
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan Through Additional Chief Secretary,
Rural Development And Panchayati Raj Department,
Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur Raj.
2. The Director, Elementary Education, Bikaner, Rajasthan.
3. The District Education Officer Elementary Education,
Barmer.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rohitash Singh Rathore
For Respondent(s) : Ms. Surbhi Bissa for Mr. K.K. Bissa
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REKHA BORANA
Order 16/02/2022 The present petition has been filed with the prayer for consideration of the candidature of the petitioners for the post of Prabodhak. In the present petition, it has been stated that the petitioners were initially appointed in the year 1999 and 2002 respectively on the post of para teachers. In the year 2008, the applications were invited for the post of Prabodhak and as per the conditions, the age limit for the in service para teachers was relaxed to the extent that if the person was within the age limit on the date of appointment as para teacher, he would be considered within age limit for the post of Prabodhak. The said relaxation was (Downloaded on 16/02/2022 at 08:50:08 PM) (2 of 4) [CW-16686/2017] granted in terms of Rule 13 of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Prabodhak Services Rules, 2008 (hereinafter referred to as "Rules of 2008").
The petitioners have prayed that at the time when they entered into service as para teachers, there was no age limit prescribed and therefore the same can now not be limited for the purpose of recruitment as Prabhodak. Counsel submitted that a similarly situated person Lehru Lal Jat has been granted appointment and therefore, the present petitioners be also granted the same relief.
Counsel for the petitioner relied upon the judgment passed on 22.02.2010 in the first round of litigation initiated by a bunch of persons including him, wherein, it was directed that the petitioners who are not found eligible because of any other reason would be assigned and communicated the reason for the same and if aggrieved, that person would be free to avail remedy under law. Counsel argued that no reason for the rejection of petitioners' candidature was ever communicated to them and therefore, they did not prefer any petition earlier.
Counsel for the respondents argued that the case of the petitioners would not be governed by any of the Rules as they were more than 35 years of age on the date of their initial appointment as para teachers. Admittedly, both the petitioners were more than 35 years of age in the year 1999 and 2002 respectively, therefore, even if the application of Rule 13(v) of the Act of 2008 is made, the same would be of no help to the petitioners.
A perusal of the judgment dated 22.02.2010 passed in the earlier round of litigation also makes it clear that there was no (Downloaded on 16/02/2022 at 08:50:08 PM) (3 of 4) [CW-16686/2017] observation or direction for consideration of the petitioners. The only direction was of communication of the rejection to the concerned candidate. It is admitted on record that no communication was ever forwarded to the petitioners but then it is also relevant to note that after the passing of the judgment on 22.02.2010, the petitioners took no further steps for redressal of their grievance, if there was any. It is only in the year 2017 that the present writ petition has been filed and that too on the premise that a similarly situated person has been granted the relief in the year 2017.
The writ petition of the petitioners does not call for any interference by this Court because of the following two reasons:
Firstly, the petitioners were overage even at the time of their initial appointment as para teachers and therefore, were not eligible at the very instance. Resultantly, they are even otherwise not entitled for any relaxation.
Secondly, after passing of the judgment in the year 2010, the petitioner just moved a representation and kept sitting tight over the matter for a period of 7 years. Any relief qua the recruitment of year 2008 which has completed years ago cannot be granted or entertained at this belated stage. No petition can be entertained only on the ground that a similarly situated person has been granted the relief.
As held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Rup Diamonds & Ors. Vs. UOI & Ors. decided on 02.01.1989, no writ can be issued in favour of the petitioners who were not vigilant but were contend to be dormant and chose to sit on the fence till somebody else's case is decided. (Downloaded on 16/02/2022 at 08:50:08 PM)
(4 of 4) [CW-16686/2017] In view of the ratio as laid down in Rup Diamond's case (supra) and in view of the above observations, the present writ petition is dismissed.
All pending applications also stand disposed of.
(REKHA BORANA),J 90-AnilKC/-
(Downloaded on 16/02/2022 at 08:50:08 PM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)