- (1.) This is an intra court appeal filed by the writ petitioner of W.P. No.271 of 2010 under Rule 134 of the Rajasthan High Court Rules against an order dated 13.1.2010 passed by Single Judge in aforementioned writ petition.
(2.) The appellant was essentially aggrieved by his non-selection by respondents on the post of Constable. According to appellant he was more meritorious as compared to others and hence the appellant should have been selected and given appointment on the said post of Constable, It is for this grievance, the appellant filed the writ petition out of which this appeal arise. The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition by impugned order on the ground of delay and laches.
(3.) This is what the learned Single judge held: "Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. An advertisement for giving appointment on the post of Constable was issued by the Director General of Police on 8.1.2003 advertising 29 posts. The result was declared in the year 2003 itself. The petitioner did not choose to challenge the rejection of his candidature. However, on the basis of only ground that his financial condition was not so as he could have challenged that order, now the petitioner has approached this court by filing this writ petition on 7.1.2010 on the basis of the judgment delivered by the Jaipur Bench of this Court in SBCWAP No.4114/2003- Dal Chand Sain Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors decided on 3.1.2008. According to the petitioner the facts situation of the case of Dal Chand Sain and the petitioner are identical and, therefore, in view of the reasons given in the judgment of Dal Chand Sain, the petitioner is entitled to the same relief which has been granted to said Dal Chand Sain. The judgment delivered in the case of Dal Chand Sain dated 3.12.2008 is judegment in peronam and not judgment in rem. The directiion issued by this court in said judgment to the respondents to undertake exercise was to be done only for the petitioner in that case and not for all candidates, who were candidates in the process of selection issued in the year 2003 so as to upset the settled position. Otherwise also, the petitioner who accepted the rejection of his candidature in the year 2003 cannot take help of the judgment delivered in another's case. It is settled law that person who was sitting on the fence is not entitled to take benefit resulting out of decision given in another's case and that decision was given because the writ petitioner of that case was vigilant and raised the issue in time. Settled position cannot be unset in the manner, the petitioner is seeking to do. In view of the above, the writ petition of the petitioner is dismissed on the ground of delay and on the ground of abandonment of claim as well.";