Veerendra Singh Siradhana, J. - (1.) WITH the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the matter was taken up for final disposal at this stage.
(2.) THE petitioner is aggrieved of inaction of the respondents in not considering his case for re -appointment/reinstatement in service in pursuance to the directions issued by this Court in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6351 of 1990 (Ram Pratap v. State of Rajasthan & Ors.), decided vide judgment and order dated 9th October, 1991, and therefore, has approached this Court praying for the following relief(s): - (i) to direct the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for re -appointment/taking back in service in pursuance to directions of this Hon'ble Court in SBCWP No. 6351/190 dt. 9/10/91 and thereafter, re -appoint the petitioner as Class -IVth employee from the date the other similarly situated candidates were given re -appointment in pursuance of said directions of this Hon'ble Court. (ii) to direct the respondents to further award all the arrears of salary and other consequent benefits such as seniority, selection grades etc. treating the petitioner to have been appointed from the date similarly situated persons were appointed with other benefits & costs. Shorn off unnecessary details, the skeletal material facts indispensable for appreciation of the controversy are: that a batch of writ application was disposed of adjudicating upon the impugned order dated 30th October, 1990; issued for termination of services of the employees, who were appointed between January, 1990 to June, 1990, for the same being arbitrary, illegal and unjustified. This Court having considered the controversy adjudicated upon the batch of writ applications, lead case being Ram Pratap v. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (S.B. Civil Writ Petition Number 6351 of 1990); with certain directions contained therein. It is pleaded case of the petitioner that in pursuance to the directions issued by this Court vide judgment and order dated 9th October, 1991; the employees who were working as Class -IV Employee and were similarly situated as the petitioner, have been taken back in service long back, but the petitioner has been denied the same treatment on the pretext that the record relating to the earlier appointment of the petitioner as Class -IV Employee, is not available with the office of respondent number 4. After serving a notice for demand of justice, along with the relevant document, but having received no response, the petitioner has instituted the writ proceedings.
(3.) IN response to the notice of the writ application, the respondents have filed their reply repelling the claim of the petitioner. However, admitting the fact that the petitioner was appointed in Government B.D.M. Hospital, Kotputli, Jaipur, on 31st August, 1989, and joined his duties on 8th September, 1989. It is further pleaded that ex -employees of the department of medical, who had completed 90 days of service, were given preference and who ever applied in response to advertisement dated 19th August, 1993 (Annexure -R/1), issued in compliance of the directions issued by this Court vide judgment and order dated 9th October, 1991, were accorded appointment on being successful fulfilling the terms and conditions of the advertisement inviting applications. It is further pleaded that the advertisement made a specific stipulation, calling upon the intending and eligible candidates, to participate in the selection process conducted in compliance of the judgment and order passed by this Court dated 9th October, 1991; in case of Ram Pratap (supra). The eligible and intending candidates were called upon to submit their applications for consideration of their candidature through Registered A.D. Post and the application ought to be received before 5.00 P.M. with further stipulation that any application received thereafter, was not to be considered/entertained. According to the learned counsel for the respondents, there is not even an iota of evidence to substantiate the fact that the petitioner, in fact, even submitted any application for consideration of his candidature in, response to the advertisement dated 19th August, 1993. Moreover, the petitioner has resorted to the internal communication of the department and did not take any step for almost a decade after the recruitment process conducted and concluded, in compliance of the directions issued by this Court in case of Ram Pratap (supra). The effort of the petitioner in referring to the internal communication of the department and serving notice for demand of justice, appears to be a pretext to cover up his own fault for not participating in the selection process. Thus, the writ application suffers with the vice of delay and laches and therefore, merits rejection on that count as well. Referring to the communication dated 13th May, 2005, the learned counsel would further submit that in fact, the petitioner neither made any application for consideration of his candidature nor participated in the selection process. The fact of his appointment as Class -IV Employee, has also been denied.;