B. J. Shethna, J. - (1.)The petitioner was initially appointed as L.D.C. in the respondent Panchayat Samiti by a Resolution dated 16th July, 1984 (copy of the appointment order has not been produced on the record of this petition). His services were temporarily extended by an order dated 1.2.1985 till the regular candidate is selected by the Commission (Annex.1). By an order dated 15.4.1985, the Development Officer of the Panchayat Samiti referred the matter for further extension of the services of the petitioner as he had no power to extend the services of the petitioner for more than one year. By an order dated 16.7.1984 (Annex.3), his services were extended for further period of six months. As per that order, the services of the petitioner were coming to an end on 31st Jan., 1985. Therefore, for extending his services, a letter was addressed by the Panchayat Samiti to the Secretary of the District Establishment Committee (D.E.C.) and till then his services were extended on temporary basis. The Secretary of the D.C.C. by his letter dated 23rd July, 1985 informed the Development Officer of the Panchayat Samiti that it was not possible to extend the services of the petitioner from 31st July, 1985 onwards, and therefore, necessary procedure may be done in accordance with the rules. At that stage, the petitioner had rushed to this Court and filed this petition on 31st July, 1985, alongwith the stay application praying that the respondent-Panchayat Samiti be restrained from terminating the services of the petitioner and if his services have been terminated then the respondents be directed to take back the petitioner in service as if no such order was ever passed against him. On stay application filed on 31st July, 1985, the petitioner could not obtain any order in his favour. On 1.8.1985, rule was made returnable within a week in this petition. Somehow or other it was not heard till today. During the pendency of the petition, the Development Officer passed an order on 16.9.1985 and terminated the services of the petitioner with effect from that day. Within two days from that order that is on 18.9.1985, the Secretary of the D.E.C. informed the Development Officer to temporarily continue the services of the petitioner and accordingly, by an order dated 23.8.1985, the Development Officer revoked his earlier order dated 16.9.1985 and treated the services of the petitioner continue with effect from 1.8.1984. However, a decision was taken on 8.10.1985 by the Secretary of the D.E.C. not to extend the services of the petitioner under Rule 33(5) of the Rajasthan Panchayat Samiti and Zile Parishad Rules, 1959 and, therefore, by an order dated 15.10.1985 the services of the petitioner came to an end on payment of one month's advance salary to the petitioner. The aforesaid orders passed by the authorities were sought to be produced on record of this petition with a prayer that the same may be taken into consideration and the order of termination be declared void and it may be set aside. They were annexed alongwith an application dated 29.10.1985 as annexures 6 to 9. This is the unique way of bringing the documents on record. There is no amendment application amending the main petition with a prayer to bring the said documents at annexures 6 to 9 on record of the main petition. No orders are passed on that application so far. But, it appears from the record of this case that they were sought to be relied upon for the purpose of obtaining stay in a subsequent stay application filed by the petitioner before this Court on 29th Oct., 1985. No stay was granted in that application also.
(2.)A detailed reply was filed by the respondent to the main petition on 17.11.1985. On 7.2.1994, the main petition was sought to be amended by the petitioner by filing another application. In its paragraph No. 1, it has been stated that ''while this writ petition is pending some orders were made which have been placed on record as annexures 6, 7, 8 and 9 with the application dated 9.10.1985. The petitioner is advised that though not necessary so to do, it will be safe to amend the writ petition. Hence this application'' and for the first time the annexures 6, 7, 8 and 9 which have been referred earlier were sought to be brought on record of the main petition which includes the termination order at Annex. 9. Instead of granting that amendment, this Court ordered the application to be heard with the main petition. In short, the amendment as prayed for was not granted.
(3.)Now the question is whether at such a belated stage such an amendment can be granted by this Court or not. However, it was pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the amendment application was not filed after a period of 9 years, but in fact such amendment application was filed in the office of this Court by the petitioner on 11th Jan., 1989, a copy of which was served upon the respondent also. But, somehow or other, the same was misplaced and not traceable from the office and, therefore, on 7.2.1994, another amendment application was presented before this Court. Therefore, the learned counsel submitted that there is a delay of only 4 years in filing amendment application. He has gone to that extent that there is no delay because the documents which have been sought to be brought on record in the petition which was sought to be amended were already tried to be produced by the petitioner in 1985 itself alongwith an application. It may be different thing that it was not in accordance with rules nor the proper procedure was followed for doing the same. Therefore, this Court instead of taking hyper technical view of the matter should grant the amendment and heard and decide the main petition on merits. In support of his submission, the learned counsel has relied upon several decisions of the Supreme Court as well as of this Court and Gujarat High Court. I have refrained myself from referring to any one of those judgments for the simple reason the judgments cited by the petitioner have no application to the facts of this case. In this case, there are peculiar facts which are already stated by me earlier. It is to be made clear to one and all that courts are not to be taken as granted. If there are rules and procedure, it has to be strictly adhered to otherwise there will be no rule of law, but it will be a rule of jungle. Therefore, I am not inclined to grant amendment application which is strictly speaking has been filed after 9 years. There are other reasons also for it, namely, (i) the petitioner when appointed he was knowing fully well that his appointment was purely on temporary basis till the regular candidate is made available which is selected by the Commission; (ii) till his appointment was extended from time to time he had never made any grievance before any one. It is only at the stage where he was told that his services will not be extended then only at that stage the petitioner has rushed to this Court (iii) this Court did not grant stay in earlier stay application which was filed alongwith the petition on 31st of July, 1985. Then, subsequent events took place and the petitioner was terminated then again reinstated and again terminated. At that stage again, the petitioner filed another stay application instead of challenging that by way of a substantive writ petition. When he failed in that attempt also, he did not do any thing. He has quitely slept over the matter for years together. Even assuming for the sake of argument that the petitioner had filed amendment application in 1989 in the office of this Court which is not to be found in the office even than period of 4 years is not a small period for which the petitioner can be excused. The petitioner did not bother to enquire into the matter us to what happened after he submitted amendment application in 1989 till Feb. 1994. He filed another amendment application on 7.2.1994. For the reasons stated above, that application for amendment is rejected.