Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Ganpat Parihar vs Food Corpn. Of India & Ors on 21 August, 2017
Author: Dinesh Mehta
Bench: Dinesh Mehta
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10169 / 2017
Ganpat Parihar S/o Late Radhey Shyam Parihar, Aged About 34
Years, R/o Sutharo Ka Bas, Ummed Chowk, Jodhpur
----Petitioner
Versus
1. The Food Corporation of India Through the Chairman and
Managing Director, Food Corporation of India, New Delhi.
2. The Zonal Manager (North), Food Corporation OF India, Noida.
Uttar Pradesh.
3. The Zonal Manager, Food Corporation of India, District Office,
Jodhpur (Rajasthan).
4. The Sr. Regional Manager, Food Corporation of India, Jaipur 4,
Nehru Place, Tonk Road, Jaipur 302015
5. The District Manager, Food Corporation of India, District Office,
Jodhpur (Rajasthan).
----Respondents
_____________________________________________________
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Pritam Joshi
_____________________________________________________
JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA
Judgment
21/08/2017
By way of the present writ petition, petitioner has laid
challenge to the order, which was passed way back on
29.09.2011.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner's
mother had applied on his behalf, seeking appointment on the
compassionate ground by way of submitting an application dated
22.07.2000, after the death of his father, late Shri Radhey Shyam
Parihar.
The petitioner's candidature came to be rejected by the
(2 of 2)
[CW-10169/2017]
respondents -Food Corporation of India vide communication/order
dated 29.09.2011, indicating therein that pursuant to petitioner's
application dated 02.05.2003 his case was considered and
rejected as no vacancy was availabale. It was also observed that
the petitioner cannot be granted appointment after eleven years,
as the distress does not continue for such long period, while
placing reliance upon various judgments of Hon'ble the Supreme
Court.
Having suffered the said order in September, 2011 the
petitioner went in hibernation and woke up from his slumber only
in 2016, after six years. The petitioner has not whispered anything
about the delay in preferring the present writ petition, much less
explaining the same.
The present writ petition is, therefore, dismissed on ground
of delay and laches.
(DINESH MEHTA), J.
anurag/219