N.N.MATHUR,J. - (1.) HEARD Mr. Dinesh Mehta learned counsel for the appellant and perused the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 29.1.2002 dismissing the writ petition on the ground of delay.
(2.) RAJASTHAN Public Service Commission issued an advertisement on 31.5.2001 for appointment on the post of lecturer in 'Jainology', providing eligibility of Post Graduation in concerned Subject. The petitioner objected to said eligibility by submitting a representation to the Rajasthan Public Service Commission on the ground that the actual recruitment was for the post of Lecturer in Jeevan Vigyan and Jain Vidhya and there was no subject like Jainology. By a communication dated 24.11.2001, he was informed that his candidature has been rejected on twin grounds. Firstly that he was not Post Graduate in Jainology and secondly he had not passed NET/SLET. He also did not fulfil the eligibility conditions of acquiring M.Phil, or Ph.D. The petitioner filed a writ petition on 18.1.2002 challenging the communication rejecting his candidature. He also sought a direction to quash the advertisement dated 31.5.2001 so far it relates to recruitment on the post of Lecturer in the Subject 'Jainology'. A further direction was sought to direct the R.P.S.C. to issue fresh advertisement in the subject Jeevan Vigyan and Jain Vidhya. The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition on the ground of latches. The learned Single Judge found that though the advertisement was issued on 31.5.2001 providing recruitment for the post of Lecturer in the Subject of Jainology, but the petition was filed as late as on 18.1.2002. The contention that he could have approached to the Court only after he received the communication dated 24.11.2001 rejecting his candidature did not find favour with the learned Single Judge. It is well settled that under Article 226 the power of a High Court to issue writ is discretionary. One of the ground for refusing the relief under Article 226 is that the petitioner has been guilty of delay and latches. Thus, it is essential that a person, who is aggrieved of the order of the Government or any executive action should approach to the High Court with utmost expedition. The underline object is that the courts do not encourage agitation of stale claims and exhuming matters, which have already been disposed of or where rights of a third party have accrued in mean time or where there is no reasonable explanation for delay. There is no fixed formula to measure the delay. The Apex Court in Smt. Sudama Devi v. Commissioner and Ors., : [1983]142ITR824(SC) has observed as follows: In every case it would have to be decided on the facts and circumstances whether the petitioner is guilty of laches and that would have to be done without taking into account any specific period as a period of limitation. There may be cases where even short delay may be fatal while there may be cases where even a long delay may not be evidence of laches on the part of the petitioner. Thus, no hard and fast rule can be laid down as to when the High Court should refuse to exercise its jurisdiction in favour of the party who moves it after considerable delay and is otherwise guilty of latches. The experience shows that even a delay of 3 days may be fatal in a given case and it may not be even for more than 5 years in facts of another case. In R.S. Deodhar v. State of Maharashtra : (1974)ILLJ221SC the Apex Court entertained a petition under Article 32 after 11 years of accruable of the cause of action. The Court ruled that 'There is no inviolable rule that whenever there is delay, the Court must necessarily refuse to entertain a petition. It is not a rule of law but a rule of practice based on sound and proper exercise of discretion and depends upon facts and circumstances of each case.'
(3.) IN the instant case, it is not in dispute that at the time appellant approached to the Court, the interviews had already commenced. Now, not only the selections have taken place but the persons selected have been given appointment and they are working. Any interference at this stage will pejudicially affect the appointment of the persons selected. We are not expressing any opinion on the merit of the case on the request of the learned counsel Mr. Dinesh Mehta. Accordingly, we leave the question open. Suffice to say that, we do not find any justified reason to interfere with the well reasoned order of the learned Single Judge.;