Failure to approach the authorities in a timely manner and filing a writ petition after an inordinate delay without any explanation may lead to the dismissal of the petition.

JUDGMENT

Arun Bhansali, J. - This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking a direction to the respondents to provide bonus marks to the petitioner towards total experience of 02 years 04 months and 07 days gained by the petitioner for recruitment on the post of LDC and if he comes in merit, he be offered appointment on the post of LDC.

2. It is inter alia claimed in the petition that pursuant to the LDC recruitment 2013, the petitioner had applied. The petitioner claimed award of bonus marks based on the experience gained by him. It is claimed that as the petitioner had experience of having worked with B.R.J.F. and respondents had not recognized the said experience for the purpose of grant of bonus marks, though the petitioner appeared before the respondents for document verification, he was not granted appointment for lack of requisite bonus marks.

3. The respondent State vide its Circular dated 21/4/2017 (Annex. 9) issued clarification requiring the award of bonus marks inter alia for those who have worked under the B.R.J.F. project and based on which, the petitioner relied on the certificate dated 3/4/2017 indicating his experience in this regard. The petitioner claims that based on the clarification, as the petitioner is entitled for award of bonus marks, the petitioner approached the respondents for consideration of his candidature by making representation (Annex. 13), however, the petitioner was not accorded the benefit of bonus marks and has not been accorded appointment, which is not justified.

4. Reply to the writ petition has been filed inter alia indicating that at the time of declaration of result in 2013, the petitioner was not falling in merit. However, the department vide communication dated 21/4/2017 (Annex. 9) included B.R.J.F. Scheme as a Scheme of the department and pursuant to the same the petitioner obtained the experience certificate for having worked under B.R.J.F. Scheme. However, despite in possession of the certificate the petitioner remained absent at the time of document verification in the year 2017 & onwards and for the first time by way of present writ petition, the petitioner has sought appointment on the post of LDC after a gross delay and is relying on undated representations, for which there is no proof of having presented the same.

5. Submissions have been made that as the petitioner did not approach the respondents at the relevant time, filing of present writ petition after a gross delay of over five years in relation to the recruitment of 2013, the petitioner is not entitled to any relief.

6. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the material available on record.

7. The petitioner, on the specific objection raised by the respondents pertaining to the delay and not approaching the respondents since the year 2017, when he became entitled to seek bonus marks, by way of rejoinder has produced document (Annex. 14) to claim that the petitioner has appeared in the document verification on 3/7/2013. The petitioner, who did not fall within the cut off at the relevant point of time i.e. in the year 2013, his appearance at that point of time is meaningless.

8. The petitioner was required to approach the respondents based on the Circular (Annex. 9) providing for award of bonus marks for having worked in B.R.J.F. Scheme for which he was in possession of certificate, which apparently he has failed to do before filing of present writ petition and has relied on certain undated representations, which also despite objection from the respondents, have not been explained in the rejoinder as to when the same were filed and petitioner has chosen to rely on his appearance in 2013.

9. The facts clearly indicate that the petitioner has not been vigilant and has approached this Court after inordinate delay without any explanation worth the name. Further, the petitioner has not even approached the respondents in this regard and, as such, on account of unexpla