RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT BENCH AT JAIPUR
Prakash Gupta, Vinod Kumar Bharwani, JJ.
Shiv Kumar Sharma - Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan & Ors. - Respondents
Special Appeal Writ No. 238 of 2021
Decided On : 29-10-2021
Limitation - Recruitment Appeal - Limitation Act - Section 5 - The court condoned the delay in filing the appeal under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, emphasizing the importance of timely action in recruitment matters and the implications of long delays on the right to relief.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant challenged the dismissal of his writ petition regarding recruitment for PTI Grade-II, claiming he was denied participation despite securing higher marks than the last selected candidate. His application was allegedly not received by the respondents.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the appellant's claims were based on events from 1998, and he had delayed his legal actions significantly, with the last writ petition filed in 2019. The court upheld the learned Single Judge's decision, noting the lack of merit in the appeal.
Issues: Whether the delay in filing the appeal and the long gap since the recruitment process affected the appellant's right to relief.
Ratio Decidendi: The court reiterated that significant delays in pursuing legal remedies, especially in recruitment matters, undermine the validity of claims and the right to relief.
Result: The appeal is dismissed due to lack of merit.
JUDGMENT
1. Application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act is allowed for the reasons mentioned therein and the delay of 172 days in filing the appeal is condoned.
2. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the arguments have been heard and the appeal is being decided finally at this stage.
3. This appeal has been filed by the appellant challenging the order dated 9.7.2020 passed by the learned Single Judge, whereby the writ petition filed by the appellant has been dismissed.
4. Facts of the case are that on 9.8.1998, the respondents issued an advertisement for recruitment to the post of PTI Grade-II (Male). The respondents conducted the interview, but the appellant was not allowed to participate therein. He filed S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3168/2001 before the learned Single Judge, which was disposed of vide order dated 5.10.2006 in the light of the judgment dated 13.9.2000 passed by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of State of Rajasthan & Ors. Versus Hari Ram & 16 Ors. reported in 2001 (1) WLC (Raj.) 124. Thereafter the appellant filed S.B. Civil Contempt Petition No. 159/2007, which was dismissed vide order dated 11.2.2008. The appellant filed another contempt petition no. 10/2009, which also came to be dismissed vide order dated 12.1.2009. Thereafter in the year 2019, the appellant filed another S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 15886/2019 before this Court, which came to be dismissed vide order dated 9.7.2020. Hence, this appeal has been filed.
5. The appellant who is present in person submits that he secured more marks than the last candidate selected by the respondents. He further submits that he submitted his application form, but the respondents denied to have received the same vide order dated 21.7.2007.
6. On the other hand, learned AAG appearing for the State has opposed the same and submits that the matter pertains to the recruitment of the year 1998. Twice the appellant filed contempt petitions, which were dismissed in the year 2008 and 2009 respectively. After about 10 years, the appellant filed the second writ petition in the year 2019. The selection process has already been over, hence no interference is required by this Court in the order passed by the learned Single Judge.
7. Heard. Considered.
8. In the writ petition, the appellant prayed the following relief:
ii) Any other order which this Hon'ble Court deemed just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may also be passed in favour of the petitioner."
9. It is an admitted fact that vide order dated 21.7.2007 the respondents denied to have received the application form of the appellant, but the said order was not challenged by the appellant in the writ petition, as is evident from the prayers quoted above. It is also an admitted fact that the previous writ petition filed by the appellant was disposed of in the year 2006. Thereafter twice the appellant filed contempt petitions, which were dismissed in the year 2008 and 2009 respectively. 10. After about 10 years, in the year 2019 he filed another writ petition, which came to be dismissed vide order dated 9.7.2020.
11. The learned Single Judge while dismissing the writ petition rightly observed that recruitment in question relates to the year 1998-99, whereas the petitioner filed the writ petition seeking appointment on the post of PTI Grade-II in the year 2019 i.e. after a delay of 20 years.
12. We are in agreement with the observations made by the learned Single Judge.
13. Thus, we find no force in this appeal and the same being bereft of any merit is liable to be dismissed, which stands dismissed accordingly.
14. Consequent upon the dismissal of the appeal, the stay applicat
Timely action is crucial in recruitment disputes; significant delays can bar relief.
Delay in approaching the court may disentitle a petitioner to obtain discretionary relief, and the original cause of action is crucial in determining delay and laches.
Timeliness in litigation and treating similarly situated individuals equally underscores rights in recruitment processes.
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 SC....
Employees selected under the same process maintain seniority regardless of appointment delays, and delays not attributable to them cannot deprive them of benefits.
The principle that courts assist vigilant individuals and not negligent ones, particularly in matters of recruitment and appointment, was established.
The court ruled that a fair evaluation in recruitment interviews is essential, asserting that absurd scoring practices cannot stand, and substantial justice prevails over technicalities of delay.
The court upheld the single Judge's decision, emphasizing adherence to judicial precedent and the binding nature of prior rulings agreed upon by parties.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.