Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

7. We have considered the rival submissions and perused the material on record.

8. Indisputably, pursuant to the advertisement dated 14.3.18, the respondent had applied for appointment to the post of Livestock Assistant in Non TSP category. The notification declaring Pratapgarh District as Scheduled Area was issued by the President on 19.5.18 i.e. after expiry of the last date for submission of the application form. The respondent has averred that he had made a representation for change of category from Non TSP to TSP on 29.5.18. In this regard, a typed copy of the representation is placed on record as Annexure-4. It is not disclosed in the petition that by which mode the representation was submitted by the respondent to the Secretary, Selection Board. The copy of the representation placed on record does not bear the endorsement of the receipt thereof. As a matter of fact, the representation alleged to have been made as aforesaid, does not inspire confidence. Be that as it may, even if it is assumed that the representation was made by the respondent, the fact remains that he was not permitted to change the category and he participated in the selection process. The written examination for the said recruitment was held on 21.10.18 and the result was declared on 29.1.19, wherein the respondent was not selected. Even (5 of 6) [SAW-228/2020] thereafter, the respondent did not approach this Court immediately and filed the writ petition as late as on 3.10.19. Thus, apparently the respondent has failed in approaching this Court for redressal of his grievance with utmost expedition and therefore, the writ petition filed with delay and laches after completion of the selection process was liable to be dismissed on this count alone and the learned Single Judged has seriously erred in allowing the petition preferred after inordinate delay relying upon earlier decision in Manish Kumar Nagda's case (supra).

9. It is pertinent to note that in Manish Kumar Nagda's case, the recruitment to the post of Teacher Gr.III initiated vide notification dated 12.4.18 was in question, wherein the writ petition was filed by the writ petitioners on 15.6.18, which was decided by the learned Single Judge vide order dated 23.7.18 and while extending the benefit of the notification dated 19.5.18 to the petitioners therein, they were extended only 20 days time to migrate from Non TSP category to TSP category i.e. from advertisement no.1/18 dated 12.4.18 to advertisement no.2/18 dated 12.4.18. Thus, even on the strength of decision in Manish Kumar Nagda's case (supra), the respondent who had approached the Court after completion of the selection process with inordinate delay of 1½ years could not have been granted any relief, as prayed for.

10. There is yet another aspect of the matter. After completion of the selection process, the persons selected have already been accorded appointment and none of them was impleaded as party respondent in the writ petition and thus, even otherwise no relief could have been granted to the respondent in their absence.

(6 of 6) [SAW-228/2020]

11. In view of the discussion above, the order under appeal passed by the learned Single Judge deserves to be set aside.