The petitioner's claim for relief was not entitled as per the judgments in Kailash Chand Sharma v. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (2002) 6 SCC 562, Manmohan Sharma v. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (2014) 5 SCC 782, and State of Rajasthan v. Nemi Chand Mahela & Ors. 2019 (2) WLC (SC) Civil 299.

JUDGMENT

Arun Bhansali, J. - This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner on 15.3.2022 aggrieved against the orders dated 24.1.2004 (Annex. 4) and 6.3.2019 (Annex. 17) rejecting the candidature of the petitioner for appointment on the post of Teacher Gr. III (Level-I) pursuant to the advertisement dated 12.6.1998 and seeking appointment on the post pursuant to the said advertisement.

2. In relation to the advertisement dated 12.6.1998, the petitioner initially approached this Court by filing SBCWP No. 8766/2002, which came to be decided by order dated 2.12.2002, whereby, the Court directed the Director, Panchayati Raj Department, to decide the representation of the petitioner. The petitioner submitted the representation, which came to be rejected by the Director, Primary Education, Rajasthan Bikaner, on 24.1.2004 inter alia on the ground that due to expiry of validity of merit list and the fact that Supreme Court had confined the directions in Kailash Chand Sharma v. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (2002) 6 SCC 562 to the candidates, who had approached the Court on or before 18.11.1999 and the petitioner had approached the Court in the year 2002, he was not entitled to any relief.

3. From the record, it appears that after rejection of the representation of the petitioner on 24.1.2004, the petitioner did not take any steps at that relevant time to question the validity of the order dated 24.1.2004 and claims that as the material was made available to him now, he became aware that the Education Department could not have decided the representation, based on which, he again approached the respondents and filed SBCWP No. 6903/2018, which petition came to be decided on 17.5.2018 requiring the respondents therein to again decide the representation made by the petitioner.

4. When the order was not complied with, the petitioner filed contempt petition. Whereafter, the order dated 6.3.2019 (Annex. 17) came to be passed by the respondents again rejecting the representation of the petitioner, based on which, contempt petition came to be rejected on 17.1.2020 leaving it open for the petitioner to take his remedy against the dismissal of the representation, qua which order, review petition filed by the petitioner came to be rejected on 4.3.2020.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner made submissions that dismissal of petitioner's representation way back on 24.1.2004 was without jurisdiction as the same should have been decided by the Secretary, Panchayati Raj Department and that even now the representation which has been decided by the Education Department on 6.3.2019 is also without jurisdiction.

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

7. Admittedly, the petitioner is seeking to raise grievance in relation to recruitment which was initiated in the year 1998 i.e. after over 24 years. Further, the representation was rejected in the year 2004, qua which, writ petition has been filed after 18 years, prior to which, the petitioner had already approached this Court in the year 2018 by filing the writ petition and impleading the Education Department as party respondent to his writ petition and when the representation was not decided within the time granted by the Court, he filed contempt petition impleading the officers of the Education Department as well, as party respondents.

8. Ultimately, the representation came to be decided during pendency of the contempt petition on 6.3.2019. The contempt petition was decided on 17.1.2020 and the review petition came to be decided on 4.3.2020. Even from the dismissal of the review petition, the writ petition has been filed after two years.

9. From the above, it is apparent that the petitioner is seeking relief qua the Recruitment-1998, representation decided in the year 2004 and another representation decided in the year 2019.

10. Besides the above, the relief as claimed by the petitioner is essentially not available to him a