Ganesh Kumar vs State Of Rajasthan

The petitioner’s earlier writ petition came to be disposed of by this Court on 17.07.2002, in view of the definition of “Family†given by the

Government vide its order dated 05.03.2001.

Pursuant to the directions given, the petitioner was accorded appointment vide an order passed in the year 2003.

The petitioner has never raised any objection/contention that his date of appointment should relate back to the date, when the other persons,

applying under the same recruitment, were given appointment viz., July, 1996.

The petitioner has got up from his slumber after 17 years of his appointment and now approached this Court, with a grievance that his date of

appointment ought to have been from July, 1996 and not from the date when he was given appointment.

Mr. Joshi, learned counsel for the petitioner, relied upon judgment of Hon’ble the Supreme Court, rendered in case of M.R. Gupta Vs. Union of

India & Ors., reported in (1995) 5 SCC 628 to contend that the petitioner has a recurring cause of action and thus, delay should not come in his way of

seeking justice.

It was also argued by Mr. Joshi that the condition, for which the petitioner was denied appointment, had subsequently been quashed by a Coordinate

Bench of this Court on 20.11.2006. As a natural consequence, it should mean that the offending condition of denying appointment to the family

member never existed.

In considered opinion of this Court, instant writ petition, for the grievance raised, suffers from delay and laches. The petitioner having accepted the

order of appointment in the year 2003, has remained in hibernation for 17 years and has now come into action by way of preferring the present writ

petition.

A perusal of judgment in case of M.R. Gupta (supra) reveals that the case before Hon’ble the Supreme Court was one involving pay fixation;

dealing with the facts of such case, the Apex Court said that pay fixation is a continuing wrong and the cause of action is recurring cause of action.

As contrast to the facts involved in the case of M.R. Gupta (supra), in the present case, the petitioner has a basic grievance that he ought to have

been given appointment w.e.f. July 1996, when other persons taking part in the subject recruitment were given appointment.

In considered opinion of this Court, the basic concern, which has been shown by the petitioner in the present writ petition is, that his appointment

should be reckoned from July, 1996. Such grievance cannot be said to be a recurring cause of action. If it was a wrong, it was in this appointment

order and cause of action thus, accrued to the petitioner immediately upon appointment being given to him.

Petitioner has accepted his appointment in July, 2003, without any protest or demur.

Petitioner’s argument based on judgment dated 20.11.2006 cannot be countenanced. If that be so, the petitioner ought to have approached this

court immediately after the judgment dated 20.11.2006 was passed by this Court.

If reckoned form such date, the petition suffers from at least 13 years’ delay.

The writ petition is thus, dismissed not only on the ground of delay and laches but also on the principles of acquiescence.

The stay petition also stands dismissed accordingly.