IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR 1. S.B. CIVIL REVIEW PETITION NO.104/2012 IN S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION No.297/2010 [ENTITY] vs. [ENTITY] & Ors. 2.S.B. CIVIL REVIEW PETITION NO.123/2012 IN S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION No.14634/2009 [ENTITY] vs. [ENTITY] & Ors. 3.S.B. CIVIL REVIEW PETITION NO.124/2012 IN S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION No.14640/2009 Mahesh Chand Sharma vs. [ENTITY] & Ors. 4.S.B. CIVIL REVIEW PETITION NO.125/2012 IN S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION No.14635/2009 [ENTITY] vs. [ENTITY] & Ors. 5.S.B. CIVIL REVIEW PETITION NO.126/2012 IN S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION No.14642/2009 Mahendra Kumar Gupta vs. [ENTITY] & Ors. 6.S.B. CIVIL REVIEW PETITION NO.127/2012 IN S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION No.14639/2009 [ENTITY] vs. [ENTITY] & Ors. 7.S.B. CIVIL REVIEW PETITION NO.128/2012 IN S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION No.6644/2010 Jamman Lal vs. [ENTITY] & Ors. 8.S.B. CIVIL REVIEW PETITION NO.129/2012 IN S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION No.8170/2010 [ENTITY] Dhanwant vs. [ENTITY] & Ors. 9.S.B. CIVIL REVIEW PETITION NO.131/2012 IN S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION No.14641/2009 [ENTITY] vs. [ENTITY] & Ors. 10.S.B. CIVIL REVIEW PETITION NO.132/2012 IN S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION No.14638/2009 Jitendra Kumar Sharma vs. [ENTITY] & Ors. Date of order : 06/05/2013. HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE [ENTITY] Shri [ENTITY] for the petitioners.
In all these review petitions, the petitioners are seeking review of the judgement of this Court dated 20.03.2012, by which the writ petitions filed by the petitioners were dismissed. The writ petitions were dismissed primarily because the petitioners have approached this Court with a huge delay by filing the writ petitions in the year 2009 and 2010 seeking appointment in the process of selection that was initiated way back in the year 1998. Therefore, they cannot be held entitled to any relief as per the judgement of Supreme Court in [ENTITY] vs. [ENTITY] & Ors.-(2002) 6 SCC 562. Even otherwise, the writ petitions were liable to be dismissed for delay and latches.
Shri [ENTITY], learned counsel for the petitioners has argued that the judgement of Supreme Court in [ENTITY], supra has not been correctly understood and applied by this Court while dismissing the writ petitions. The Supreme Court in that judgement has held award of bonus marks on the ground of residence of district and rural areas to be illegal. However, on the question of relief, the Supreme Court directed that the claim of the writ petitions shall be considered afresh in the light of aforesaid, viz-a-viz the candidates appointed on or after 18.11.1999 and those writ petitioners, who are found superior in merit after the inclusion of the bonus marks, should be offered appointment. It was contended that the Supreme Court, did not make any observations that relief should be confined to the candidates who filed writ petition prior to 18.11.1999 and therefore judgement of the Supreme Court has been misread.
I am afraid that judgement of Supreme Court in [ENTITY], supra has not been read by the petitioners themselves in full. The relief was actually confined to only those who had challenged the select list of the appointment by filing the writ petitions prior to 18.11.1999. However, the direction was given that if after exclusion of bonus marks they are found to be having superior merit than those who have been appointed on or after 18.11.1999, such candidates should be offered appointment. The Supreme Court in doing so protected that their appointment made upto 17.11.1999.
The Supreme Court moulded the relief in the aforesaid terms by invoking [SECTION] of the [ACT] and directed that comparison of the merit of such candidates should be made only with those appointed after 18.11.1999. In that case, the Supreme Court in para 46 also observed that if the writ petition is filed with delay of more than one year after the judgement of Supreme Court, such writ petitions were dismissed.
In the present case, the writ petitions are filed with delay of more than eight years. Filing of this review petition is nothing but seeking rehearing of the writ petitions in the garb of the review petitions.
The review petitions are dismissed with no order as to costs.
RS/ ([ENTITY]), J.
All corrections made in the judgement/order have been incorporated in the judgement/order being emailed. ([ENTITY],P.A.)