Arjun Kumar S/o Shree Ram Kumar vs The State of Rajasthan

The prayer in the present petition is to appoint the petitioners against the two vacant posts of the Sweeper in Municipality Sadulshahar.

While praying for the said relief, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that they were at Serial No.1 and 2 of the waiting list in pursuance to the result declared on 19.03.2013. It is submitted that the petitioner had filed a complaint against two persons namely Mukesh Kumar and Ugrasen. Ultimately both the persons who were selected were dismissed from service on

17.11.2014. The petitioners made various representations for appointment on the said posts being in the waiting list. However, the said representations have not been decided till date.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has been heard.

There is no explanation for the delay of 04 years except that the representation is still pending.

So far as making repeated representations is concerned, the Apex Court in the case of S.S. Rathore Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh reported in 1989 (4) SCC - 582 observed that "submission of just a memorial or representation to the head of the establishment shall not be taken into consideration in the matter of fixing limitation".

This view has been subsequently followed in various judgments of the Apex Court as also in the case of Union of India & ors. Vs. Har Dayal reported in 2010(1) SCC -394, wherein it was observed:

"This Court has repeatedly held that merely giving representation will neither extend the limitation nor wipe out the delay and laches."

Thus, it is well settled that repeated representations do not condone the delay and laches and the representation is not an adequate explanation to take care of the delay. The relief under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is a discretionary relief and if there is an inordinate delay on the part of the petitioner in filing the writ petition and such delay if not satisfactorily explained, the Court may decline to intervene while exercising its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

Moreover, no rule, provision or regulation has been pointed out to this Court to show the period for which the waiting list was required to be kept alive. Even otherwise, the result was declared on 19.03.2013. No date of waiting list has been mentioned but obviously the waiting list must have been prepared at the time when the result was declared i.e. in March, 2013. The services of the two selected candidates were dispensed with after more than one and half years of their selection in March, 2013. Thus, under no circumstances, it can be imagined that the waiting list must have been kept alive for such a long period. The waiting list being lapsed, the writ petition deserves to be dismissed on that ground

alone. Secondly, the petitioner has taken almost four years to approach this Court after the said two posts are stated to have been vacated on account of the dismissal of the services of the two selected candidates.

In view of the above, the writ petition is dismissed both on the ground of merit as well as on delay and latches.