HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT

JODHPUR

D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 183/2015

Manohar Singh S/o Shri Heer Singh, By caste Rajput, aged 48

years, Resident of Village & Post- Nimbera Kallan Via

Khushalpura, Tehsil- Rajput, District Pali 306 305 (Raj.)

----Appellant

Versus

1.

State of Rajasthan through the Director, Rural

Development & Panchayati Raj Department, Government

of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur (Raj.)

2.

The Collector, Pali (Raj.)

3.

The Gram Panchayat, Nimbera Kallan, Panchayat Samiti

Rajput, District Pali through its Secretary.

4.

Arjun Lal S/o Shri Pancha Ram, Nat, R/o Village & Post

Nimbera Kallan, Via Khushalpura, Tehsil- Raipur, District-

Pali 306 306 (Raj.)

----Respondents

For Appellant(s)

:

Mr. Gaurav Thanvi

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANGEET LODHA

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINIT KUMAR MATHUR

Order

30/05/2019

1.

This intra-court appeal is directed against the order dated

26.11.2013 passed by learned Single Judge of this Court, whereby

writ petition preferred by the appellant/writ-petitioner assailing

the legality of the order dated 27.08.2002 (Annex.17) appointing

the fourth respondent (Arjun Lal) as ‘Shiksha Sahayogi’, has been

dismissed.

2.

The appellant has also questioned the legality of the order

dated 06.02.2014 passed by learned Single Judge, whereby

review petition preferred by the appellant seeking review of order

dated 26.11.2013 has also been dismissed.

(2 of 2)

[SAW-183/2015]

3.

The appeal is reported to be barred by limitation for 854

days. An application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act has

been filed for condonation of delay. The explanation for inordinate

delay in filing the appeal is sought to be explained by the

appellant in terms that appellant was in search of earning his

livelihood and, therefore, he could not file appeal within limitation.

4.

The explanation furnished for inordinate delay in filing the

appeal, as aforesaid, is not plausible and acceptable and,

therefore, we are not inclined to condone the delay and the appeal

preferred deserves dismissal as barred by limitation. However, in

the interest of justice, we have examined the matter on merits as

well.

5.

It is noticed that the fourth respondent herein was appointed

on the post of ‘Shiksha Sahayogi’ and his appointment on the post

was questioned by the appellant. It has come on record during

pendency of the petition that Scheme viz. Rajiv Gandhi Swarn

Jayanti School, wherein the fourth respondent was appointed as

‘Shiksha Sahayogi’ had come to an end, and therefore, even

otherwise the appellant could not have been accorded

appointment on the post of ‘Shiksha Sahayogi’ in place of fourth

respondent- Arjun Lal.

6.

The application u/s 5 of the Limitation Act is rejected.

7.

In view of above discussion, the appeal is dismissed as

barred by limitation.

(VINIT KUMAR MATHUR),J

(SANGEET LODHA),J

6-DJ/-