- (1.)Mr.M.S.Rao, learned AGP for respondent nos.1 and 2, and Ms.Vinita Vinayak, learned Advocate for respondent no.3, submitted that this matter is similar to that of Special Civil Application No.8166 of 1999, which was heard and decided by this Court on 26th March, 2004. This matter pertains to Sabarkantha District, which had different strength of Talati-cum-Mantri cadre. Except that, there are some minor differences on factual aspects, the law point involved is the same.
(2.)The present petition is filed by the petitioner being aggrieved of non-grant of appointment to the post of Talati-cum-Mantri. The case of the petitioner is that he applied for the post of Talati-cum-Mantri in response to an advertisement dated 28th February, 1991 for Sabarkantha District. The advertisement pertained to 32 posts, of which 12 were for General Category, while 3 were reserved for Scheduled Caste, 5 for Scheduled Tribes, 3 for Socially and Educationally Backward Class, and 9 for physically challenged persons. The petitioner applied as a physically challenged person and a certificate dated 24th September, 1997 issued by the Office of Superintendent, General Hospital, Mehsana, is placed on record at Annexure-D, which says that he is having disability to the extent of 40% on account of congenital deformity in both hands. On 9th February, 1992, examination was held and the petitioner was selected. He was placed at Serial No.20 in the Select List. He was informed about his selection by a letter dated 21st July, 1992, a copy of which is placed at Annexure-B collectively (page-21). It is contended by the petitioner that on account of 10% cut imposed by the Government vide Government Resolution dated 28th October, 1991, the petitioner was not appointed. On the other hand, in Bharuch District where, in the year 1991, an advertisement for the recruitment of Talati-cum-Mantri was issued, all the posts were filled in. The petitioner wrote several letters to respondent no.2-Board for issuing appointment order and also made grievance to various Ministers, but, he did not hear anything favourable. The petitioner along with several other similarly situated persons, resorted to hunger strike from 12th February 1996 at Sector CH-5, which was brought to an end, on an assurance given by the Minister and Members of Legislative Assembly on 15th February, 1996. The petitioner waited for almost four years and approached this Court by filing this petition on 2nd November, 1999 only.
(3.)The learned Advocate for respondent no.3 i.e. District Development Officer, Sabarkantha District, and the learned AGP, Mr.M.S.Rao, for respondent nos.1 and 2, submitted that the petition deserves to be dismissed on a sole ground of delay and latches. It is emphatically submitted by the learned Advocates for the respondents that appointment is sought for the post for which advertisement was issued on 28th February, 1991 and Select List was prepared in the year 1992. The petitioner has come to this Court in the year 1999, without setting out any reason for approaching this Court so late. The learned Advocates submitted that the only reason, which they could gather from the petition, which motivated the petitioner to approach this Court is a favourable disposition of Special Civil Application No.7323 of 1997 in favour of the petitioner of that petition on 30th June, 1999.