SHETHNA, J. - (1.) THE petitioners, who claimed to be similarly situated with Prem Adhar Gaur and others and Prem Prakash and others have filed this petition on 20. 9. 94 praying that the respondent State be directed to grant permission to the petitioners in M. L. T. Course in any of the Hospitals run by the State. Alongwith this writ petition, the stay petition was also filed, but so far no interim orders have been passed on it. In this writ petition, notice was ordered to be issued on 29. 9. 94, thereafter, the matter was adjourned from time to time on different occasions and on different grounds and today i. e. December 1, 1999 it is placed for admission.
(2.) LEARNED counsel Shri Saluja for the petitioners first submitted that Prem Prakash and others have filed writ petition against the State of Rajasthan being S. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6178/92 before this Court seeking same relief which has been prayed for by the present petitioners in this petition. However, the said petition became infructuous as the State Govt. itself passed an order following the order dated 21. 8. 93 granting permission to those students to appear in the course. He, therefore, submitted that there was no reason for the State Govt. not to grant same relief to the present petitioners also. He submitted that action of the State Govt. in not extending the similar benefit to the present petitioners is in clear violation of Article 14 of the Constitution, therefore, the petitioners be granted that relief by directing the respondent State to grant admission to them in M. L. T. Course in any of the Hospitals of the State. It was also submitted by learned counsel Shri Saluja for the petitioners that similarly situated students like Prem Adhar Gaur had also filed writ petition no. 5135/93 before this Court praying the same relief and this Court (P. K. Palli, J.) (as he then was) allowed that petition with the directions to the respondent State to give same treatment to those petitioners also in respect of training as well as in the conduct of the examination which was given to 65 students earlier and then to the remaining 16 students later. This judgment is also reported in W. L. R. 1994 Raj. 640 (1 ). It was, therefore, submitted by learned counsel Shri Saluja that prayer made in this petition be granted and this petition be allowed. Learned counsel Shri S. G. Ojha appearing for the respondent no. 2 vehemently submitted that merely because the State Govt. earlier passed an order dated 21. 8. 93 that itself would not entitle the petitioners to claim similar relief from the State Govt. He submitted that the petitioners have not come well in time and they simply waited for the result in Writ Petition No. 5135/93 filed by Prem Adhar Gaur and others (supra) and when the petition was allowed, thereafter, the petitioners have chosen to file this writ petition. He submitted that similarly situated persons had earlier filed writ petition no. 4426/93 before this Court seeking same relief was dismissed by the learned Single Judge of this Court (B. R. Arora, J.) (as he then was) on 8. 9. 93 solely on the ground of delay and latches. Against the said judgment, special appeal was preferred before the Division Bench of this Court and the same was also dismissed by the Division Bench on 20. 9. 1993 on the ground of gross delay and latches. He, therefore, submitted that this petition is also required to be dismissed solely on the ground of gross delay and latches and no such relief prayed for by the petitioners in this petition can be granted by this Court after give years of filing of the petition and in all 10 years from the cause of action which arose in 1989. He also pointed out the relevant portion from the judgment of learning Sin-gle Judge in Prem Adhar Gaur's case (supra ). I would like to reproduce the same, which reads as under: " I am taking this view in peculiar situation and circumstances of this case since the petitioners have been crying for their rights ever since the year 1989, and a considerable period has been lost in the process. Any observation or decision made in this case shall not be a precedent in any other case since the view is being taking on account of extreme hardship which the petitioners have undergone as narrated above in this order. There will be no order as to costs. " From the above, it is clear that though the learned Single Judge of this Court allowed the writ petition of Prem Adhar Gaur and others, the learned Single Judge himself made it clear that whatever observation or decision taken by him in that case shall not become precedent in any other case since the view was taken by him on account of extreme hardship which those petitioners had undergone, which was narrated in the order itself. Thus, the judgment in Prem Adhar Gaur's case (supra) will not help the petitioners. There is lot of substance in the submission made by Shri S. G. Ojha that merely because State Govt. though is fit to pass order in case of some persons in 1993 that would not entitle the petitioners to claim and relief. The law on this point is very well settled that those who are alert and vigilant can only get relief from the Court if they come within reasonable time and those who slept over their right for years together will not get any relief much less discretionary relief from the Court. Keeping in mind this principle, the learned Judge of this Court also dismissed the writ petition no. 4426/93 filed by Ashok Kumar Joshi and others only on the ground of gross delay and laches. Said view of the learned Single Judge was confirmed by the Division Bench of this Court on 28. 9. 93 while dismissing the special appeal no. 600/93 filed by Shri Ashok Kumar Joshi and others. The aforesaid judgment of Divi-sion Bench is binding on this Court, therefore, the present petitioners are not entit-led for any relief which is prayed for by them in this petition after so many years.
(3.) IN view of the above discussion, this petition fails and is hereby dismissed. .;