Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Smt. Mukesh Devi vs State Of Raj. & Ors on 25 November, 2016
Bench: Govind Mathur, Pushpendra Singh Bhati
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR
RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
D.B.SPL. APPL. WRIT NO. 1456 / 2014
Smt. Mukesh Devi daughter of Gyarsilal wife of Manoj
Kumar, aged about 34 years, by caste Ahir, Resident
of village Ganeshpura, Post Rava, Tehsil Khetari,
District Jhunjhunu.
----Appellant
Versus
1. State of Rajasthan through the Secretary to the
Government, Education (Group-II) Department,
Government of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur
2. Commissioner - cum - Director, Elementary
Education, Rajasthan, Bikaner
3. Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Churu
4. District Education Officer, Elementary Education,
Churu
5. Additional District Education Officer, Elementary
Education, Churu
6. Saroj Sihag wife of Mohar Singh Sihag, Resident
of Raiyatunda, Tehsil Taranagar, District Churu at
present working as Prabodhak, Government Primary
School, Gadana, Tehsil Taranagar, District Churu.
----Respondents
__________________________________________
For Appellant : Mr. SK Verma
__________________________________________
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GOVIND MATHUR
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI Judgment (2 of 3) [SAW-1456/2014] 25/11/2016 This appeal is barred by limitation from 100 days. An application is preferred as per Provisions of Section 5 of the Limitation Act to have condonation of delay. Ignoring the same, we have examined merits of the case. Learned Single Bench dismissed the writ petition on the count that the process of selection in-question was initiated in the year 2008 and no justifiable reason was there to interfere with the same after a lapse of six years.
Briefly stated facts of the case are that the respondents initiated process of selection for recruitment to the post of Prabodhak as per provisions of Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Prabodhak Service Rules, 2008 under an advertisement dated 31.05.2008. The appellant-petitioner considering herself eligible submitted an application in the prescribed proforma but that was rejected by the respondents. After completion of process of selection appointment was accorded to one Smt. Saroj Sihag against the vacancy reserved for Other Backward Class (Women) candidates. Aggrieved by the same, the appellant- petitioner submitted representation to the competent authority, that was responded under a letter dated (3 of 3) [SAW-1456/2014] 18.08.2010 with assertion that the certificate submitted by the petitioner to claim reservation, being a member of other backward class, was not in accordance with norms being not showing the name of her husband.
To challenge the reason given by the respondents for denying her candidature the petitioner preferred a petition for writ in the year 2011. We are of the considered opinion that, as a matter of fact, the cause to action for denial of appointment accrued to the petitioner the moment she came to know that appointment had already been accorded to Smt Saroj Sihag. The appointment to Smt Saroj was given in the month of August, 2008 itself. The petitioner at the first instance submitted representation in the year 2010, as such, a huge delay was there in filing the writ petition itself.
In view of it, we do not find any justifiable reason to interfere with the decision arrived by learned Single Bench. The appeal suffers from delay in addition to the other demerits, hence, dismissed. (DR. PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI)J. (GOVIND MATHUR)J. Anil Kumar Choudhary