Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Ramesh Chand Bairwa vs State (Panchayati Raj Dep )Ors on 10 May, 2016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR O R D E R S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 103/2015 Ramesh Chand Bairwa Vs. State of Raj. & Ors. Date of Order: 10.05.2016 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VEERENDR SINGH SIRADHANA Mr. Govind Gupta, for the petitioner.
**** The recruitment process initiated in view of the advertisement No.01/1996, for appointment to the post of Teacher Grade-III was earlier subjected to challenge by the petitioner by institution of S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 945/2003(Ramesh Chand Bairwa Vs. The State of Raj. & Ors.), decided on 8th March, 2007. Taking note of the adjudication by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Mandan Mohan Sharma & 72 Ors. Vs. State of Raj. & Ors. ; 2006 (1) WLC (Raj.) 430, the writ petition was disposed off, with the following directions:
"Both the counsel submit that the controversy raised in this writ petition for appointment to the post of Teacher Gr.III is covered by the Division Bench Judgment of this Court in case of Mandan Mohan Sharma & 72 Ors. V/s State of Rajasthan & Ors.-2006 (1) WLC (Raj.) 430. In the said case, the Division Bench has issued the following directions:-
(i) We direct the State Government to forthwith constitute a Committee headed by the Chief Secretary to examine as to whether vacancies of Teacher Grade III pursuant to advertisement No,1/96 still exist and whether after the judgment dated February 12,2001 of learned Single Judge any appointment on the post of Teacher Grade III was given by giving relaxation under Rule 296 of 1996 Rules.
(ii) Any appointment so given under Rule 296, which was struck down, shall be subject to enquiry.
(iii) The meritorious persons included in the select list drawn in pursuance of advertisement No. 1/96 shall be considered for appointment on the basis of their merit against the vacant posts of Teacher Grade III.
(iv) The appellants MMS and DKS (Appeal No. 76/2001) who have served nearly six years as Teacher Grade III and have become overage by now, shall be reconsidered on the basis of their merit in secondary examination and till final decision is arrived at, they shall be allowed to work on the post of Teacher Grade II and their services shall not be terminated.
The present writ petition is also disposed of in terms of aforesaid judgment of the Division Bench.
2. The petitioner again approached this Court in the year 2015, after having instituted contempt proceedings (S.B. Civil Contempt Petition No. 1334/2014), which terminated on withdrawal of the contempt proceedings, with liberty to avail of remedies as otherwise available in law as is reflected from the order dated 10th November, 2014.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Govind Gupta, reiterating the pleaded facts and grounds of the writ application, submits that after decision on the earlier writ petition vide order dated 8th March, 2007, the petitioner addressed a representation dated 15th June, 2007, but the same has not evoked any response, and therefore, he has instituted the present writ proceedings again.
4. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and with his assistance perused the materials available on record.
5. Indisputably, the writ application instituted in the year 2003 was disposed of by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court with the directions as extracted hereinabove. It appears that thereafter the petitioner did not take any steps. Though, according to the learned counsel, a representation was addressed on 16th June, 2007, but there is nothing to substantiate the fact stated. Moreover, the document (representation/annexure-4) does not bear any date and there is nothing on record to substantiate that it was even served on the respondents. The contempt proceedings instituted in the year 2014 stood terminated as withdrawn, by the petitioner, on 10th November, 2014, with liberty reserved to him to avail his remedies as otherwise available in law.
6. The learnned counsel for the petitioner again submits that he may be permitted to address another representation.
7. This Court is of the considered opinion that a direction for representation in such matters, which are stale claims, is not required to be entertained. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of C. Jacob Vs. Director of Geology and Mining Indus. Est. and Anr.: 2008 (10) SCC 115 under paragraph 9 and 14, held thus:
9. The courts/tribunals proceed on the assumption, that every citizen deserves a reply to his representation. Secondly they assume that a mere direction to consider and dispose of the representation does not involve any `decision' on rights and obligations of parties. Little do they realize the consequences of such a direction to 'consider'. If the representation is considered and accepted, the ex-employee gets a relief, which he would not have got on account of the long delay, all by reason of the direction to `consider'. If the representation is considered and rejected, the ex-employee files an application/writ petition, not with reference to the original cause of action of 1982, but by treating the rejection of the representation given in 2000, as the cause of action. A prayer is made for quashing the rejection of representation and for grant of the relief claimed in the representation. The Tribunals/High Courts routinely entertain such applications/petitions ignoring the huge delay preceding the representation, and proceed to examine the claim on merits and grant relief. In this manner, the bar of limitation or the laches gets obliterated or ignored.
14. We are constrained to refer to the several facets of the issue only to emphasize the need for circumspection and care in issuing directions for `consideration'. If the representation is on the face of it is stale, or does not contain particulars to show that it is regarding a live claim, courts should desist from directing `consideration' of such claims.
8. In the instant case at hand, the recruitment process was initiated in the year 1996, which was subjected to challenge by way of writ application No. 945/2003, disposed off on 8th March, 2007, taking note of the fact that the controversy was no more res-integra in view of the adjudication by the Division Bench in the case of Mandan Mohan Sharma & 72 Ors. (supra). The petitioner thereafter did not address any representation so also did not avail of legal remedy.
9. It was only in the year 2014, the matter was attempted to be revived by institution of contempt proceedings, which terminated on withdrawal of the contempt petition, however, reserving liberty to avail of remedy as otherwise available in law.
10. The direction to consider and dispose off representation would inevitably involve the process of decision on rights and obligations of the parties. If the representation is considered and accepted, one is entitled to relief even contrary to the long delay whereas rejection of the representation would facilitate the individual with fresh cause of action with reference to original cause of action but treating the order of rejection of representation as the cause of action.
11. For the reasons and discussions hereinabove, the writ application suffers with vice of delay and laches, and therefore, deserves to be dismissed.
12. Ordered accordingly.
(VEERENDR SINGH SIRADHANA),J.
Pcg/168