Dismissal of a writ petition due to gross delay in filing and lack of satisfactory explanation for the delay.

JUDGMENT

Vinit Kumar Mathur, J. - The lawyers are abstaining from work and are not appearing before the court.

2. Heard the petitioner No.1.

3. The present writ petition has been filed for the following relief:

"A/. By an appropriate writ, order or direction the impugned communication/instructions dated 19.06.2018 (Annex.06) being illegal and arbitrary may kindly be quashed and set aside.

B/. By an appropriate writ order or direction the respondent may kindly be directed not to include the reserve category candidates in the lottery of general candidates if they had taken special relaxation as per Rule 6 of the Rajasthan Municipalities (Safai Karmchari Service) Rules, 2012.

C/. By an appropriate order or direction the condition/ point No.7 of the communication/ instructions dated 19.06.2018 (Annex.06), being illegal and arbitrary may kindly be quashed and struck down and respondents may kindly be directed to conduct fair and transparent lottery system.

D/. By an appropriate writ order or direction the select list (Annex.07) issued by the respondent whereby SC/ST and other reserve category candidates included in the General category may be strike out from General category and fresh merit list of General category may be prepared, and respondents may kindly be directed to grant appointment to the petitioners on the post of Safai Karmchari in the pursuance of the advertisement dated 13.04.2018 (Annex.-01) with all consequential benefits.

E/. That in alternative to above prayers, By an appropriate writ, order or direction the entire illegal lottery process carried out in pursuance and in violation of the advertisement dated 13.04.2018 (Annex.01) and select list of Raisingnagar (Annex.03) may kindly be quashed and set aside & fresh lottery may kindly be conducted or in alternative petitioners may be accorded appointment on the post of Safaikarmchari’.

4. Perusal of the writ petition and prayer made therein clearly shows that the selections made in 2018 have been challenged in the year 2023. There is no explanation for the delay occasioned in filing the present writ petition after a period of five years. The selections/ appointments made in the year 2018 have attained finality much less the selected persons have not been arrayed as party respondents to the present writ petition.

5. This court feels that the writ petition has been preferred after gross and palpable delay of five years to unsettle the appointments made in the year 2018. On asking the petitioner No.1 as to why the writ petition has been filed in the year 2023, he stated before this court that his father had suffered paralytic attack, therefore, he could not approach this court in time. The explanation given by the petitioner No.1 regarding the delay caused in filing the writ petition does not appear to be palpable and satisfactory.

6. In view of the discussions made above, the present writ petition is filed after a gross delay of five years and, therefore, this Court is not inclined to entertain the same. The writ petition is, therefore, dismissed.