- (1.) The writ petition pertains to recruitment to the post of Teacher Gr III held in the year 1998. Earlier a writ petition bearing SB Civil Writ Petition No. 7963/2002 was preferred which was disposed of vide order dated 31.10.2002. The grievance of the petitioner is regarding denial of appointment as candidature of the petitioner has not been considered on the representation made though specific direction was given by this court on the earlier occasion. The prayer is made to direct the respondents to give appointment. Reference of the judgment of this court in the case of Dattesh & ors versus State of Rajasthan & ors, SB Civil Writ Petition No. 4555/2004, decided on 20.1.2011 at Principal Seat, Jodhpur has been given wherein direction in favour of similarly placed candidates were given.
(2.) I have considered submissions of learned counsel and perused the record. I find that for the recruitment of the year 1998 this is second round of litigation after 14 years, that too, when first writ petition was decided in the year 2002, hence, if representation was not considered then petitioner was not required to wait for 10 years. No justification of delay and laches exist.
(3.) It is otherwise necessary to refer judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Kailash Chandra Sharma versus State of Rajasthan & ors, 2002 6 SCC 562 wherein belated petitions before the Hon'ble Supreme Court were not entertained and relief was confined to the petitions which were preferred on or before 18.11.1999. The relevant para of the aforesaid judgment is reproduced hereasunder :- "46.Having due regard to the rival contentions adverted to above and keeping in view the factual scenario and the need to balance the competing claims in the light of acceptance of prospective overruling in principle, we consider it just and proper to confine the relief only to the petitioners who moved the High Court and to make appointments made on or after 18.11.1999 in any of the districts subject to the claims of the petitioners. Accordingly, we direct : 1. The claims of the writ petitioners should be considered afresh in the light of this judgment vis a vis the candidates appointed on or after 18.11.99 or those in the select list who are yet to be appointed. On such consideration, if those writ petitioners are found to have superior merit in case the bonus marks of 10% and/or 5% are excluded, they should be offered appointments, if necessary, by displacing the candidates appointed on or after 18.11.1999. 2. The appointments made upto 17.11.1999 need not be reopened and reconsidered in the light of the law laid down in this judgment. 3. Writ Petition No. 542/2000 filed in this Court under Article 32 is hereby dismissed as it was filed nearly one year after the judgment of the High Court and no explanation has been tendered for not approaching the High Court under Article 226 at an earlier point of time.";